Hi/ soqo 

.AIZ.WS 




the Atjtt^TAoMuu 



Hi/ soqo 

.MZ,W5 




the Atiw^-TA^ 



MAINE'S WAR 



UPON 



THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC 



A Series of Historical Articles 



BY 



HENRY A. WING 



PUBLISHED IN 



THE PORTLAND EVENING EXPRESS 



3-3I0&7 
M 






LETTER L 

EARLY DAYS IN MAINE. 

AUGUSTA*, Dec. 28.— (Special Corres- 
pondence).— Maine was a half-century 
in advance of the other states in the 
Union in temperance reform, and en- 
acted the first prohibitory legislation 
in this Country, and in the world. To- 
day, the wave of prohibitory legisla- 
tion which is sweeping over the Souin 
and the West, brings Maine into the 
limelig'ht, not only for this Country, 
bait for the inspection of the civilized 
world. Persons interested in the pro- 
hibitory question, for or against, are 
looking to Maine to see what her half 
century of legislative prohibition has 
produced, and wherein her prohibitory 
law has benefited her conditions. 

In the early history of the State, 
Maine had an unenviable reputation 
for inebriety. Foreign writers referring 
to its people, alluded to them as a 
"race of drunkards." Circumstances, 
no doubt, had much to do with this. 
After the termination of the- War of 
1812 with England, the people who 
were chiefly engaged in navigation, 
opened up a great trade with the West 
Indies. Rum was one of the principal 
articles of traffic. In 1832 Judge Pond, 
who was secretary of the Maine Tem- 
perance society, of which Governor 
Samuel E. Smith was president, made 
the statement that in 1827 Maine had 
a population of 360,000. Besides the 
large importation and manufacture of 
other liquors in that year, Secretary 
Pond said, "there were distilled 1,333,- 
160 gallons of rum. Nearly every tav- 
ern and store was a grog shop." 

In 1830 there -were 13 distilleries in 
Maine, w<hich produced one million 
gallons yearly. , In 1833 there were 
five hundred licensed dealers, and 
nearly as many licensed taverns, be- 
sides great numbers unlicensed. The 
population of tlhe State was then 
about 400,000 yet "there were 10,000 
persons accustomed to become beastly 
drunk, 7,000 of them heads of fam- 
ilies, and 500 of them women, one 
hundred convicts in the State prison, 
200 in jails, 69 in 100 towns dying of 
delirium tremens, and 1,500 paupers, 
made so by drink." 

Millions For Rum. 

These reports, written by men con- 
temporary with the times, were not 
probably exaggerated. The statement 
is made that in one town, of 1,000 pop- 
ulation, there were 17 rum shops, and 
10,000 gallons of liquor sold, in a year. 
The estimate is made by a writer of 
that time that the amount of money 
spent each year for liquors was $12,000.- 
000. Very naturally, the people were 
alarmed over this condition of things, 
and work of reformation was begun. 
Even in those early days it was rec- 
ognized that the selling of liquor was 
a sin and a crime, and the question 



was asked, "This being so, what right 
has the legislature to license the traf- 
fic?" 

In 1832 and '33 this matter was dis- 
cussed in societies and conventions 
held for the purpose. In 1834 a great 
meeting of the State Temperance So- 
ciety over which Governor Smith pre- 
sided as president, was held, and 
Chief Justice Mellen of the Maine Su- 
preme oCurt, was elected president for 
the ensuing year. In a discussion, one 
of the members said: "If the traffic 
is immoral, how can the Legislature 
sanction it?" At that meeting a resolu- 
tion was offered to the effect that so 
far as existing 1 aws authorize the 
liquor traffic, which is morally wrong, 
they ought to be abolished, and law 
which should confer upon the traffic 
no legal right, should be enacted. 
Many of the members of the society 
feared to go so far as to call for the 
repeal of the liquor legislation, and 
so the matter was put over, for future 
consideration. 

About this same time Judge Shep- 
ley, afterwards chief justice of the 
Supreme Court, with nine others, drew 
up a form of petition to the Legisla- 
ture, which in substance stated that 
"the sale of intoxicating liquors is 
either right, or wrong. If right, the 
law should not by license make it a 
monopoly; if not right, it should not 
be sanctioned by law\" 

"That, by legalizing the traffic, and 
authorizing a revenue from it, such 
laws tend to encourage the sale and 
use of such drinks, and hold out a 
temptation to produce a town income 
from a source adverse to the moral 
interests of the community. 

"That the experience of nearly two 
centuries has fully proved that these 
laws are ineffectual in preventing the 
evil of intemperate drinking. Your 
petitioners, therefore, pray that the li- 
censing laws may be wholly and en- 
tirely repealed." 

In 1835 one of the temperance so- 
cieties passed a resolve, declaring it 
for the best interests of the people 
that the Legislature be petitioned to 
repeal all liquor laws, and to prohibit 
under severe penalties, the traffic. 

In the second annual report of the 
Maine Temperance Society (a docu- 
ment of 136 pages,) statistics abound- 
ed, gathered from all sections of the 
State, in relation to intemperate con- 
ditions, and facts regarding the liquor 
traffic. This organization was a 
most powerful one, and has branch or- 
ganizations in every county. The so- 
ciety recognized as a fundamental 
principle "total abstinences from all 
concern with ardent spirits, as an 
article of refreshment, entertainment, 
or traffic." The sole object of the 
society "was to diffuse information, 
and by a moral influence, discourage 
the use of ardent spirits, in the com- 
munity." 



The officers of this society in 1834 
were, president, Hon. Prentiss Mellen 
of Portland; Hon. Samuel M. Pond, 
Bucksport, corresponding secretary; 
Rev. William A. Drew, Augusta, re- 
cording secretary; Elihu Robinson, 
Augusta, treasurer; Charles Williams, 
Augusta, auditor. The executive com- 
mittee included Theodore S. Brown, 
chairman, of Augusta; Asa Redding- 
ton, Augusta; Bart. Nason, Augusta; 
S. K. Gilman, Hallo well; T. S. Brown, 
Vassalboro; S. M. Pond, Bucksport. 
The officers of Cumberland County 
branch in that year were William 
Ladd, Minot, president; Neal Dow, 
Portland, secretary; Rev. Solomon 
Adams, Portland, corresponding sec- 
retary. 

Prof. Alpheus S. Packard. 

Among others who addressed this 
2nd annual meeting of the society, was 
Prof. Alpheus S. Packard of Bowdoin 
College, a man most highly respected 
everywhere for his learning and piety. 
To show the tendency even at that 
early day towards prohibitory legisla- 
tion, and to illustrate what was in the 
minds of leading men of the State the 
following quotation from Prof. Pack- 
ard's address is given: 

"The great obstacle against which 
it, (cause of temperance), is obliged 
•to contend is that the monstrous evil 
stands in the midst of the communi- 
ty shielded by public law. The grog 
shop is its stronghold — and the genius 
of temperance raises her loudest notes 
of remonstrance against this invasion 
of the rights of humanity. She prays 
that man may not be suffered to rob 
and poison his fellow men, under the 
sanction of public enactment. She 
prays not that those who have the 
right to authority would legislate di- 
rectly against the evil, she calls not 
for chains and prisons, but simply re- 
quests that everything in the statute 
book which has the effect of sanc- 
tioning the traffic may be expunged, 
and public sentiment be suffered to 
have its free, uninterrupted course." 

The annual report of this ■ society 
shows the progress which is being 
made in the work of reform. In speak- 
ing of the work in one town, reference 
is made as a matter of congratulation, 
to the fact that the consumption of 
ardent spirits has been almost in- 
credibly reduced. "Where twelve 
hogsheads of liquors were consumed 
three years ago, not more than one 
is now wanted here. Of four stores, 
only one keeps the article." It speaks, 
as a, matter of public interest, of the 
fact that during the Spring of that 
year, in the town of Brunswick, tim- 
ber was cut, hewn in the woods, and 
a vessel built, without ardent spirits 
being used. It says "work on build- 
ings and vessels without ardent spir- 
its, is now not uncommon." In an- 



other place it tells that certain men 
accepted offices in a militia company 
upon the understanding that they 
would not have to treat the soldiers. 

The population of the town of Port- 
land was given then as 12,69)1. Atten- 
tion was called to the fact that the 
expense for paupers for the year pre- 
vious for the town was $5,000, and 
that $4,800 of it was made neoessary, 
by intemperance. A report from the 
town of Harpswell said, "some vessels 
are sent to sea, from this place, with- 
out ardent spirit," but in a note it was 
added that "in this town buildings are 
not raised, vessels built, launched or 
navigated, or highway taxes wrought, 
without ardent spirits. Their militia 
officers continue the custom of treat- 
ing their soldiers, their mechanics are 
furnished with ardent spirits at eleven 
o'clock and four o'clock each day, if 
they wish it, and ardent spirits and 
wine is generally used at their social 
parties." 

A report from the town of Falmouth 
said that "one of the churches admits 
none to its fellowship who drinks ar- 
dent spirits," and it is added that "so 
far as is known there is not a member 
of that church using liquor in any 
quantity." Comment is made that 
members of another church "still con- 
tinue in the traffic of ardent spirits, 
and are doing much injury to the 
cause." 

The report is filled with similar il- 
lustrations showing that at that time 
the use and sale of liquors was com- 
mon, and that in every community con- 
ditions existed which rendered some of 
the more serious-minded .men, uneasy; 
although conditions were common 
among the better class, which at this 
time would not only shock the com- 
munity, but which would relegate the 
participants to social ostracism, and 
general disfavor. 

A resume of the early attempts to 
govern the uses and abuses of ardent 
spirits, by legislative authority, will 
be treated in the next article of this 
series, and will pave the way for a 
more complete account of the prohibi- 
tory legislation of Maine. 



LETTER IL 

JAMES APPLETON. 

AUGUSTA, Dec. 9.— (Special Cor- 
respondence) — In 1820 when Maine be- 
came a separate State she copied the 
Massachusetts liquor law, which was 
a license system. For the first decade 
of the evistence of the new State the 
people were busy with many perplex- 
ing problems, and although, even in 
those early days, it was generally ree- 
ognied that zintemperance was a wide 
spread evil, no active measures were 
taken to suppress it. 

The first legislation on the subject 
of selling liquors after Maine became a 



State was approved March 20, 1821, 
-and was entitled, An Act For Regula- 
tion of Inn Holders and Common Vic- 
tualers. It provided that no person 
could sell liquors at retail unless he 
was duly licensed. It was the duty 
of the selectmen, treasurer and clerk 
of towns to license for one year "as 
many persons of sober life and con- 
versation and suitably qualified for 
•the employment" as they deemed ne- 
cessary. Each licensed person was to 
pay to the treasurer for the use of 
the town or plantation $6 and to the 
clerk for his use, $.25. The clerk, 
Wifhin one month, was obliged to re- 
turn a list of all licenses to the clerk 
of the circuit court of common pleas. 
Inn holders were Obliged to provide 
accommodations for travellers, and 
hay and grain for horses and cattle. 
Each person licensed was compelled to 
have a "board or sign affixed to has or 
her house, or some conspicuous place 
near the same, with his or her name 
at large thereon." 

Restrictions. 

The licensed persons could not keep 
about their houses or premises, any 
cards, bowls, billiards, quoits, or any 
other implement, used in gaming. 
They could not suffer disturbances or 
riots, or excessive drinking. The se- 
lectmen were obliged to post in the 
public houses the names of common 
drunkards, common tipplers and com- 
mon gamesters. The term of phohib- 
tion for sales to those people ex- 
tended a year. The penalty for selling 
to any such persons was $5. Any per- 
son who procured liquors for such 
persons was subject to fine of $10. 

An act was passed March 21 of this 
same year for "the relief of the poor." 
In this act it was provided that all 
monies accruing for licenses granted 
to inn holders, retailers and victuall- 
ers, shall be paid into the respective 
to'wn treasuries where such licenses 
are granted, for the benefit of the 
poor of said towns, and this was to 
take precedence of any other legis- 
lation relating to this particular 
point. 

In 1830 some changes were made in 
the liquor laws, one being that those 
who sold liquors were forbidden to 
sell, give or furnish to any Indian 
rum, wine, or spirituous liquor of any 
kind under penalty of a fine of $10 for 
each offense. 

In 1833 an additional act was passed 
respecting innholders, retailers and 
victualers. It was made the duty of 
selectmen of towns, assessors of plan- 
tations, and the aldermen of the City 
of Portland to insert in their annual 
calls for town meeting, an article to 
see if the people would vote to author- 
ize persons to sell rum, wine, and oth- 
er spirituous liquors, to be drunk in 
their shops. The law provided "that 
if any person felt aggrieved because 
the officers refused to grant him a li- 



cense, or revoked a license, that per- 
son could appeal to the County com- 
missioners who could adjudicate upon 
that subject." 

Change in 1834. 

In 1834 another change was made in 
the law so that a dealer, unless he was 
licensed as a retailer, could not sell a 
less amount than 28 gallons, and that 
was to be sold and carried away at 
one time. The law stipulated that 
the person who was thus licensed to 
retail liquors should be of "sober life 
and conversation, and of good moral 
character, and suitably qualified for 
the employment." Persons thus li- 
censed were required to give a bond in 
the sum of $300. Innholders were 
obliged to provide provisions and lodg- 
ings for travelers, and stable room, 
hay and provender for horses and cat- 
tle. Unless they did so, they 
were obliged to forfeit the penalty of 
their bond. Inn holders were prohibit- 
ed from having gaming instruments, 
and gambling was forbidden in the 
public houses. For every such of- 
fense the innholder was fined $10, and 
the persons convicted of playing were 
fined $5 each. There was penalty for 
disorderly conduct and drunkenness. 

Selectmen were required to furnish 
innholders with lists of all persons 
known to be of intemperate habits, and 
if the innholders sold liquors to such 
persons they forfeited their $300. 

It was also provided "that when- 
ever any person shall by idleness or 
excessive drinking of spirituous liquors 
mis-spend, waste or lessen his estate 
so as to expose himself or his family to 
want or indigent circumtances or the 
town to which he belongs to a charge 
of expense for maintaining either him- 
self or his family, or should indulge in 
the use of spirituous liquors so as 
greatly to injure his health or endan- 
ger the loss thereof, the selectmen or 
assessors should in writing forbid the 
licensed dealers to sell such person 
any liquors, for the space of one year." 
The law went even further than this, 
and made it the duty of the town of- 
ficers to give. notice to the same effect 
to the licensed dealers in other towns. 
If the person affected by such notice 
did not refcrm within the year, this 
notice was to be renewed. The person 
who should purchase liquor for these 
intemperate people svbjected himself 
to a fine of $10. Indians, if sick, could 
have liquors under the direction of a 
regular practicing physician. The 
dealers were forbidden to sell to non- 
commisioned officers and soldiers with- 
in five miles of any military post, or 
when they were on duty, unless they 
had a permit from the commanding of- 
ficer. 

In this same year, 1834, there was 
much active work done for temper- 
ance reform. This work had begun 



the year previous and in 1834 there 
•were 353 temperance societies in the 
State with a membership of 60,000. In 
1835, 18,491 members were added, and 
of these a writer of the time says 
"nearly 800 had been drunkards." This 
moral reform was carried on irrespec- 
tive of church lines, the leading- citi- 
zens 1 , whether church members' or not, 
sharing equally the interest aroused. 
Great conventions to discuss the mat- 
ter were held at the State capital, and 
at these, the question of the total pro- 
hibition of the traffic of liquor became 
more and more prominent. 

The Legislature of 1837 was electri- 
fied by a report which was made by 
General James Appleton, chairman of 
the committee on license laws. It has 
been claimed for this report that it 
was the first official declaration of 
prohibitory principles. Even in these 
days, the document would be consid- 
ered a remarkable one in many ways. 
It has been said of this report that 
General Appleton covered the ground 
so completely, presented his argu- 
ments so frankly, confidently and 
forcibly, that the document might go 
before a State Legislature today, as 
an exhaustive presentation of the 
whole question of prohibition. 

'Speaking of these pioneers in intro- 
ducing the prohibitory law, in this 
Country, it might be asserted that 
James Oglethrope, who in 1735 pro- 
cured from the British Parliament an 
act prohibiting the importation of 
ardent spirits into his colony of 
Georgia, began the work. It might 
be argued that it found its inception 
in 1785, when Dr. Benjamin Rush of 
Philadelphia published a pamphlet 
under the title of The Effect of Ar- 
dent Spirits on the Human Body and 
Mind. 

Gen. Joshua L. Chamberlain, in his 
centennial address of 1876, entitled 
Maine; Her Place in History, says: 

"About the last act of the old Maine 
Province before she lost her name and 
fame in Massachusetts Bay, was the 
passage of a liquor law, in the fol- 
lowing decided form: 'In the Court of 
Sessions, of the Peace for the Prov- 
ince, of Mayne, held at York, July 15, 
1690, ordered — That from henceforth, 
there shall not be an y rum, or other 
strong Liquor, or -Flip, sold unto any 
Inhabitant of the Town, by any Or- 
dinary Keeper therein, directly or in- 
directly, except in case of great ne- 
cessity, as in case of sickness, etc' 
This was at a time when there was 
no legal or authorized government in 
Maine, or even in Massachusetts; but 
we may cheerfully concede that the 
influence of the latter would favor 
this measure. 

"This, however, is by no means the 
earliest instance of a liquor law in 
Maine. That honor belongs to Pema- 
quid. At a Session of Council, held 
under the authority of the Duke of 



York, Sept. 11, 1677, was passed the 
following' order, which is in very plain 
Saxon, and besides the singular mer- 
it of the suggestion, is a more rad- 
ical principle for a temperance law 
than even that of the present day, 
namely, to quit drinking, carries a 
lesson of military as well as moral 
prudence: 'No Rum to be dranke on 
that side the Fort stands.' 

"A noble watchword for the young 
soldier of society which stands for 
its defence. 

"But be that as it may, the report 
of General Appleton compelled atten- 
tion to this subject, not only in this 
State, but in other states, and can 
justly be claimed one of the strong 
instrumentalities which chrystalized 
into the Prohibitory Law of Maine, as 
it now stands. The part taken in 
reform work by this remarkable man 
was of such importance that a few 
words about him cannot be out of 
place in this article. 

Gen. Appleton. 

General Janies Appleton was born 
in 1786 at Ipswich, Mass. He was 
by nature a leader of men, and was 
always known for his interest and 
energy in public affairs. In politics 
he was a Federalist. In the war of 
1812 he was colonel of a regiment; was 
one of the earliest advocates of the 
anti-slavery movement and was one 
of the pioneers in the work of tem- 
perance reform. He was a thinker 
and a writer of more than ordinary 
ability. His earliest advocacy of the 
suppression by law of the traffic in 
liquors was when he was a citizen of 
Massachusetts. In 1831 he was listen- 
ing to a debate upon this subject, in 
the legislature of Massachusetts, of 
which he had formerly been a mem- 
ber. He began to write upon the 
topic, and was one of the authors of 
a petition designed for presentation to 
the Massachusetts legislature, in 
which it was argued that the sale of 
liquors should be entirely prohibited 
by law. In »an argument he stated 
that the strong arm of the law 
should be used to shut the door 
against, instead of opening it to, in- 
temperance. "It is," said he, "this 
strong arm of the law that has 
opened tippling shops, in every cor- 
ner and village of the state; and we 
ask if this strong arm is raised at 
all, that it may be raised to save and 
not to destroy." 

In later years General Appleton re- 
moved to Portland, and in 1836 he 
was elected a member of the Maine 
Legislature. The opportunity for 
which he had waited had come, and 
in this exhaustive report he presented 
the question of prohibition to the 
Legislature. This report of course 
was tabled, and it is not on record 
whether it even provoked any discus- 



sion, although it is known that it 
caused a general excitement among 
the citizens of the State. Nine years 
later was passed an act which was 
really the beginning of prohibitory 
legislation, and in 1851 the "Maine 
Law" was passed and signed by the 
Governor. General Apple ton lived to 
see the law enacted not only in Maine, 
but in other states. He returned to 
Massachusetts in 1853 and died at his 
birthplace, Ipswich, in 1882. 

This remarkable report merits more 
than passing attention, and will be 
given in full in the next article of this 
series. 



LETTER HE. 

REMARKABLE TEMPERANCE 
DOCUMENT. 

AUGUSTA, Dec. 30. (Special to the 
EXPRESS.)— With the growing inter- 
est in temperance . eforms, the people 
again and again petitioned the Legis- 
latures for changes in the license laws 
and to these petitions little or no at- 
tention was paid. The Legislature of 
1837 received several of these peti- 
tions, aggregating 965 persons, signed 
severally, as follows: Edward Kent, 
and 486 others. Philip Morrill, and 37 
others. John Frost and 30 others. 
Benjamin P. Cole and 16 others; Hen- 
ry Darling, and 50 others; William 
Ramsdell and 22 others; Thomas 
Adams and 12 others; Joseph C. Love- 
joy and 51 others; Charles Robbins 
and 9 others; Leonard Norcross and 10 
others; Jeremiah Fowler and 22 oth- 
ers; George W. Hill and 97 others; 
John Howe, Jr., and 110 others. 

These petitions were referred to a 
joint select committee, or which Gen- 
eral James Appleton was the chair- 
man and associated with him were 
David C. Magoun, Luther Severence, 
Josiah Staples, Tristram Redman, 
Daniel Clark, William D. Sewall, E. 
Holmes, Moses Higgins, Josiah Eaton 
and Eben Knowlton. 

The committee, after consideration, 
rendered a report which, as before 
stated, caused a great excitement in 
the State, though receiving scant at- 
tention from the Legislature. The re- 
port no doubt was written entirely by 
General Appleton, and embodied the 
plan of action he had so long worked 
for, and advocated. It was a docu- 
ment, not only powerfully affecting 
the after conditions of the State, but 
reflecting great distinction on its 
writer and worthy of a careful perusal 
today. Perhaps no better resume of 
the desires and wishes of the tem- 
perance element has ever been pre- 
sented a State Legisature. The docu- 
ment read as follows: 

Appleton's Report. 

A proposition materially to change 
a system which has for years been 



incorporated with State legislation, 
and which is intimately connected with, 
various important interests of the 
State, should receive more than com- 
mon attention. Impressed with the 
importance of the subject submitted 
to them, the committee has endeavor- 
ed to present as ample a view of the 
question as the time and means which 
they had at command would allow. 

Laws granting license to sell ardent 
spirits have been enacted in every 
state in the Union; and so far as the 
committee know, they are at this time, 
under different forms, in operation in 
every state. The first license law of 
Massachusetts was passed in the year 
1646, and although from that time un- 
til the present, they have been va- 
riously altered and changed, yet at 
this very time, the license laws of 
Maine are substantially what they 
were at first — they authorize the sale 
of ardent spirits for common use. 

"This is the principle which gives 
them character. The manner of grant- 
ing the license, or the form of the 
law, are circumstances of little or no 
moment. 

"These laws, then, have been in ac- 
tive operation nearly two centuries, 
and this period seems slfficient for a 
full and fair trial; and what is the 
history of this experiment? When the 
law was first made, intemperance was 
of rare occurrence, and it was de- 
signed, as appears, to prevent rather 
than cure the evil. From that time 
until the temperance reformation, as :t 
is sometimes called, we gradually but 
constantly increased the use of ardent 
spirits, and became more and more 
intemperate, until we were reproached 
by some foreign writers as a nation 
of drunkards. Although other causes 
no doubt, were in operation, yet there 
are many reasons for the opinion that 
those laws were the principal cause 
of the results. 

' "They make it lawful and reputable 
for the person who has license to sell 
it, and of course not improper nor dis- 
honorable to purchase and use it. The 
law also, asserts the necessity and 
usefulness of ardent spirits and makes 
provision that the whole community 
be supplied; and, as if to give import- 
ance to the article, and respectability 
to the traffic, it provides that the 
vender shall be' of sober life and con- 
versation and of good moral charac- 
ter, and suitably qualified for the em- 
ployment. 

Tendency. 

"We shall not question that it was 
the design of the license laws to reg- 
ulate and restrict the sale of ardent 
spirits, and even to prevent its abuse; 
but our present enquiry is not into 
the design, but the actual tendency of 
the law. This we believe has been to 
promote intemperance, to give it be- 
ing and to continue it, down to the 
present time. It first assumes that, 



which the united testimony of physi- 
cians, and thousands of others have 
proved to be false, that alcohol is 
necessary for common use, and then 
makes provision that there shall be 
no deficiency, by making it the inter- 
est of a select few to keep it for sale. 
Tihe mere circumstance whether few 
or many keep it for sale is unimpor- 
tant, provided those who were licensed 
kept sufficient to supply the demand. 
It is the inevitable tendency of the 
shop and the bar room to decoy men 
from themselves, and their self con- 
trol, and our whole experience under 
the license laws of the State has 
proved how hopeless it is that such 
plans should exist and men not be- 
come intemperate. If the poison was 
not freely offered, and offered for sale 
under the sanction of the law it 
could not, it would not be purchased. 
"The best test of the utility of any 
law is experience, and by this rule 
the license law has been most satis- 
factorily tried; and there is no rea- 
son for supposing the amount of ad- 
dent spirits used has been less, but 
rather that the consumption was 
>muen greater in consequence of the 
law; for the law has given character 
and respectability to the traffic, and 
has done much to fix on the 'minds of 
the public the impress ion that rum is 
necessary, and that the public good 
required it. 

"'Go to the retailer and beseech him 
to empty his slhop of the poison, and 
he will tell you it is regular, lawful 
business, that he is as much opposed 
to intemperance as you are, and that 
he always withholds the cup from the 
drunkard. You again appeal to his 
sympathy, and point him to the con- 
sequences of the traffic, on all who use 
the article. He again replies, that the 
law ihas determined that a certain 
number of retailers are necessary to 
the public good, that he has paid his 
fee and got his license in his pocket, 
and that he cannot be answerable for 
consequences; now it is very plain 
that the retailer is right unless the 
law is wrong. Repeal the present law, 
and prohibit the sale, and then every 
man who ventures to sell rum would 
be obliged to do it on bis own re- 
sponsibility, he could not plead the 
statute, nor throw off the reproach 
upon tihe state. 

"It was seen many years since that 
no strictness of regulations could pre- 
vent abuse or violations of the laws, 
yet strange as it may appear, the Leg- 
islature did not at once repeal the 
traffic, but proceeded to cure the mis- 
chief by further regulations, under 
penalties most strict and severe. But 
these regulations only served to keep 
alive and augment the evil; and how 
could it have been otherwise? It is 
repugnant to the first perceptions of 
common sense to suppose that a man, 
who merely obtained a license could 
innocently sell strong water, the name 



first given to rum in colony laws, 
and that another man could be justly 
liable to a whipping, which was or- 
dered by one act, for selling it with- 
out a license. The same be observed 
of our present laws; they are absurd 
on the face of them. The people will 
never be satisfied that if the tavener 
'may rightfully vend the article by 
the glass, to the ruin of ihis neighbor, 
it is criminal for the retailer to do 
the same. 

"We, therefore, may consider it set- 
tled, that all attempts to discriminate 
between the licensed and the un- 
licensed vender as utterly futile and 
vain. And so long as it is considered 
right and proper to grant licenses, 
just so long intemperance will con- 
tinue to fill our jails and poor houses 
and penitentiaries. It is not a thing 
indifferent in itself, whether the traf- 
fic be licensed or not, and that may 
be made right or wrong by legislative 
enactments of legislation. The trade, 
except for medicinal and manufac- 
turing purposes, is morally and po- 
litically wrong; no law or legislation 
can change its essential character. 

"Complaints are frequently made 
against our public officers,, such as 
selectmen, etc., that they license too 
many, and among them many unsuit- 
able persons, and it is only necessary 
to enforce the present laws. This com- 
plaint is unfounded. The blame at- 
taches to the law and not to the pub- 
lic officer. We have no right to ex- 
pect that selectmen, or other officers 
will be either wiser or better than the 
law. It is their duty to execute, and 
not to make or alter the law. 

"In speaking of the license laws, 
however, we would by no means reflect 
improperly upon the character of those 
who established them. Our forefath- 
ers were men of the loftiest patriotism 
and the sternest moral virtue. They 
knew the evil and the sinfulness of 
intemperance, and these laws were de- 
signed to secure the people against both 
and had they also known that ardent 
spirits were entirely useless — that a 
license to vend them would entail on 
the community poverty and crime and 
every evil work — there are strong rea- 
sons for believing from what we 
know of their laws, in other analagous 
cases .that they would have prohibited 
the sale entirely. 

"But they were mistaken in relation 
to the nature of alcohol; and assumed 
that it was useful and necessary, and 
under this mistake they undertook to 
regulate the traffic in the best way 
they could. With the present age the 
case is far otherwise. It is now ascer- 
tained, not only that the traffic is at- 
tended with most appaling evils to the 
community, but that ardent spirits are 
entirely useless— that it is an unmin- 
gled evil. This fact, and i* is the ba- 
sis of this report is certain. It is 
made out by the strictest scrutiny into 
the properties of alcohol, and by the 



experience and observation of thous- 
ands in every situation in life, and 
under circumstances most favorable 
to an accurate judgment; and how 
any man, with the evidence before 
him which a few past years has sup- 
plied, can now question its truth, it is 
difficult to conceive. We are placed 
therefore, in relation to this subject 
in circumstances very different from 
those which existed when the laws 
were first made. We have some facts 
which those who made them did not 
have. And must the laws remain the 
same, notwithstanding- we have ascer- 
tained that they are founded in error? 
Shall we not alter and frame them to 
correspond to fact? 

"If it is found that the bar room and 
grog- shop are subversive of the public 
good, may we not say so — shall we not 
shut them up — shall we not cover the 
fountain whose pestilential streams 
have spread through all this fair coun- 
try, exhaling in their course disease 
and desolation, and death? 

Objections to License. 

"The objections' to license laws are 
these — they assert or imply what is 
false in point of fact, viz: — That ardent 
spirit is useful and necessary. Second 
— That all laws are necessarily of in- 
jurious tendency which directly legal- 
ize any trade or business which is in 
itself destructive of the peace and vir- 
tue of society. Third— That the man- 
ner in which the traffic is regulated, is 
suited to give character and reputa- 
tion to the trade, and of course to ex- 
tend its evils far and wide. Fourth— 
These laws oppose an insuperable ob- 
stacle to the cause of temperance; so 
long as these laws exist, just so long 
intemperance will abound. 

"Your committee is not only of 
opinon that the law giving the right 
to sell ardent spirits should be re- 
pealed, but that a law should be passed 
to prohibit the traffic in them; except 
so far as the arts or the practice of 
medicine may be concerned. The rea- 
sons for such law are as numerous as 
the evils of intemperance. Such a 
law is required for the same reason 
that we make a law to prevent the sale 
of unwholesome meats; or the law for 
the removal of any nuisance; or any 
other laws which have for their ob- 
ject to secure the good people of the 
joyment of their rights, and against 
joymnt of their rights, and against 
any practice, that endangers the health 
and life of the citizen, or which threat- 
ens to subvert our civil rights and ov- 
erthrow of our free government. We 
would prohibit the sale of ardent spir- 
its, because intemperance can never be 
■suppressed without such prohibition 
There is no more reason for supposing 
that this evil can be restrained with- 
out law, than for supposing you can 
restrain theft or gambling or any other 
crime without law. 



"And it seems obvious to remark— 
and it is presumed that no one will 
question the correctness of the position 
— that all legislation, touching this sub- 
ject, should be of a character to favor 
and promote temperance and to sup- 
press intemperance. That this was 
the design of the license laws is readily 
admitted: but we believe that it has 
been abundantly shown that this has 
not been either their effect or tendency. 
This indeed is so apparent, that it is 
a common remark that the license laws 
are the great obstacles to the progress 
of temperance. Now it appears equal- 
ly certain that no legislation can have 
any tendency to prevent intemperance 
but that which directly prevents the 
sale. This will be a public expression 
by the Legislature, which cannot be 
mistaken and which cannot fail of 
exerting the most salutary influence 
upon the whole community. 

"No object is more important than 
life and health; for the security of 
these, among other things, government 
is instituted. The laws of God as well 
as man hold human life sacred, it can- 
not be trifled with or jeopardized with 
impunity. What object is there more 
worthy of the Legislature, than laws 
to preserve the lives and health of 
the citizens ? It is for this end we have 
health and quarantine laws which have 
the value and importance of the ob- 
ject, invest health officers with almost 
unlimited power; and this is right. 
Now when it is known, by the obser- 
vation of all men. that the traffic in 
any article, entails, not onlv pauper- 
ism and crime on the communitv, but 
that in numerous cases it shortens 
human life and in man^ instances de- 
stroys it at once; it is difficult to es- 
cape the conclusion that the govern- 
ment should interpose and prohibit it 
altogether. 

"The objection will doubtless -be 
made, that if we had such a law it 
would not be enforced. Now admit 
the validity of this objection, and it 
proves the utter hopelessness of the 
case; for no one we presume will ven- 
ture the supposition, that vou can ac- 
complish against law, that which you 
could not effect with it. 

"It is sufficiently difficult to reform 
the manners and habits of a commu- 
nity, when the influence and the au- 
thority of the law can be brought to 
aid the object, but to do this agains' 
the law. and against the direct and 
powerful interest of a numerous class 
of men. created by the daw, is scarcely 
possible. 

"But your committee does not admit 
that such a law could not be enforced* 
although it is probable there would 
be many evasions of it. At a time 
when so many are interested in th«^ 
subject of temperance, it is impossible 
that such a law should be generally 
disregarded. One important effect 
would be to render the traffic disre- 



9 



putatole, as well as unlawful. No in- 
dividual who has any respect for his 
character, would continue the prac- 
tice. There are many respectable 
dealers, who are now desirous of ex- 
cluding: ardent spirits from their shops 
'but who under the operation of the 
present laws', find it almost impracti- 
cable to do so; for by breaking - off 
they would sacrifice no inconsiderable 
part of their business in other re- 
spects. This is known to be the fact 
by numerous trials. 

Objection Not Well Founded. 

"Why should the power to execute 
the law be questioned in this case 
more than any other? This is never 
suggested in respect to any other law 
that is thought needful for the public 
welfare; nor is the objection well 
founded. But suppose the law we 
have in view should be sometimes vi- 
olated; this would be no sufficient ob- 
jection to making it; for what law is 
there that men keep perfectly. But 
we are not left to conjecture on,, this 
point. We have a law to prevent 
gambling from the State; but it has 
had the effect to prevent or greatly 
restrain the evil. It is considered dis- 
graceful to keep a gambling house and 
gamblers are unwilling to be known 
in this character; hence they seek the 
darkness of the night and secluded 
places for their purpose, and. the com- 
munity are generally thus saved from 
the pernicious influence of their ex- 
ample. Now suppose Instead of this 
law prohibiting gambling we had a 
statute to regulate gambling by 
granting licenses to open gambling 
shops in every part of the State; and 
it 'would be much less demoralizing 
and not more unreasonable than the 
rum. laws; what, your committee asks, 
would be the effect of such a law? 
can anyone doubt that gambling 
shops would be as common as retail 
shops now are? It ts vain therefore, 
to object to a law that it cannot pre- 
vent the offence it prohibits. We have 
a law against theft, but have we no 
larcenies? Yet who would be secure 
in bis property, without the law? So 
it is believed that a law to prevent the 
sale of ardent spirits, would have the 
most salufary influence. It would 
then be as disgraceful to keep a rum 
shop as a gambling shop. Besides, 
the mere existence of such a law 
would exert the most salutary in- 
fluence on the public mind. It would 
of itself go to correct public opinion 
in regard to the necessity of ardent 
spirits; for it is not more true that the 
laws are an expression, of public opin- 
ion than that they influence and de- 
termine public opinion. 

"They are as truly the cause as ef- 
fect of the popular will. It is of the 
nature of the law to mould the public 
mind to its reauirements and to fasten 
upon all an abiding impression of its 
value and necessity. 



"It may be objected tlhat we have 
already tried in numerous eases to 
stay me progress of intemperance by 
enforcing the law, but that it is ifound 
by long experience to toe wholly inef- 
fectual. T'nis objection arises irom a 
strange misapprehension of our license 
laws. The fact, we reply, is not true. 
We have no law against selling rum — 
we never had a law the imost perfect 
observance of wlhich would have se- 
cured this community against intem- 
perance. All our laws, as before ob- 
served, authorize the sale and use of 
the article. The difficulty is not that 
the law has not been enforced; but it 
is, t hat when executed it 'has no ten- 
dency to prevent the evil. And we do 
,mot complain of the present laws 
merely that they are 'imperfect, tout 
that they are radically bad— that tihey 
are founded on principles totally de- 
ceptive and false. The present laws 
are sufficiently strict and severe, not 
however, against selling rum, but only 
against unlicensed vendors. They pro- 
ceed upon the supposition that if men 
and their families are ruined by the 
retail shops — itf our prisons were filled 
with felons, and our poorhouses With 
paupers. It is no great matter if only 
it be done according to law. 

"Th etruth is the license laws do 
not, even as a rule of action, prescribe 
temperance. In this particular tlhey 
are an anomaly. All good and whole- 
some laws prescribe at least what is 
right and forbid what is wrong. They 
raise the standard high and caution 
and warn and forbid; arid all Who ob- 
serve them are secure; if their penalty 
fall on any, it is through their own 
folly in disregarding the law. Not so 
with the rum laws, in their spirit and 
letter, whether executed or not execut- 
ed, whether obeyed or disobeyed, their 
only effect is to destroy. The path they 
•mark out is not the path of truth and 
safety, or virtue and happiness; tout it 
is the highway of deception and anger 
and tears and wretchedness and blood 
— it is covered in its wtoole extent, toy 
the mangled and dying, and with the 
carcasses of dead men— it leads to 
ruin and its steps take hold on the 
grave. 

"It may also be objected that the 
Legislature has no constitutional right 
to enact a Prohibitory Law — that it 
would toe oppressive and an encroach- 
ment on the rights of the citizens. 

Question of Restraint. 

"The ihlstory of our State Govern- 
ment is but the (history of measures 
and expedients, having for their ob- 
ject the security and happiness of the 
whole people. But no law can toe en- 
acted for their objects, which does not 
in some form or other operate as a re- 
straint upon every man in society. We 
will take only one example. The law of 
the road is perfectly arbitrary, for 
there is :no reason in the case itself, 
why a traveler when ihe meets an- 



10 



other should turn to the right rather 
than to the left; yet wno denies either 
the constitutionality or utility of the 
law? And there are many other 
statutes which operate to restrain the 
citizens in certain actions, which in 
themselves are not necessarily wrong, 
(but which, unrestrained, might prove 
detrimental to the interests of the 
State at large. 

"But it is too late to deny the right 
of the Legislature on this subject. It 
has already in numerous cases legis- 
lated on the sale of ordent spirits and 
their acts have received the sanction 
of the highest judicial authorities. 
"What are the present laws but a pro- 
hibition of the traffic ito all who do 
not at first obtain a license? It is 
only necessary to extend the prohibi- 
tion to every citizen and the wmole 
object is obtained. And it appears 
evident to the committee that if we 
have any law on the subject, it should 
be absolutely prohibitory. The trade 
is a public evil or it is not; if it is 
it is the right and duty of the Leg- 
islature to stay it at once, if it is not 
an evil, lit should be equallv free to 
all. 

"But the trade in ardent spirits is a 
public business carried on in the mar- 
ket places; and if it is found (by expe- 
rience that this business is necessarily 
ruinous to 'individuals, and a great 
public nuisance, there can be no ques- 
tion, that it clearly comes within the 
right of the Legislature to suppress it. 
We would not prohibit the sale of ar- 
dent spirits, because it is inconsistent 
with our rights and moral obliga- 
tions — although this is doubtless the 
fact — 'but because the traffic is incon- 
sistent with our obligations as citi- 
zens of the State, and subsersive of 
our social rights and civil institutions. 

"But we have yet to learn what au- 
thority it is, that would foe vliolated by 
an act to prohibit the sale of ardent 
spirits, not surely the State Consti- 
tution, for that has no provision that 
can be so construed as to limit the 
Legislature in this matter. Not the 
Federal Constitution; unless it is sup- 
posed the power to collect a revenue 
is off this character. But what if Con- 
gress', under this provision of the 
Federal Constitution, does authorize 
the importation of rum or brandy into 
the State of Maine, and the collection 
of a duty on the same? How is this 
inconsistent with the right of the 
State to prohibit its sale here? The 
merchant is not obliged to import the 
article, and if he does, he must take 
the chance of being able to vend it. 
Indeed, it would be a most extraor- 
dinary fact, if in the grants made to 
the Congress of the United States, the 
people of the several states had not 
reserved sufficient power to provide 
for their own internal quiet and. se- 
curity; — not sufficient to regulate or 
prohibit any traffic which might de- 



stroy the peace and endanger the lives 
of the citizens. But it is not neces- 
sary to pursue the enquiry, since tb> 
measures proposed by your commit- 
tee, are not justly liable to this ob- 
jection. 

"If it is again objected that there 
is something stronger and more to 
Ibe depended on than human law; 
even the spread of just sentiments and 
upright principles; it may be replied 
that this is more specious than sound. 
For suppose it is true, what does it 
avail in the present case? The ques- 
tion is not the value of just senti- 
ment and upright principles, nor their 
efficiency in controlling the actions of 
those who possess these virtues; but 
it. is how men are to be controlled 
in the absence of these principles? 
Upon what else can we safely de- 
pend but the law, to restrain the vi- 
cious and unprincipled? But the ob- 
jection before us proves too much, 
it proves that we should depend in 
all other cases upon just sentiments 
and upright principles. Theft and 
robbery should be restrained in the 
same way; and society should be left 
to the enlightened consciences of its 
mem'bers for security against injuries 
of every kind. 

"Another objects that we must trust 
to puiblic opinion to restrain the traf- 
fic. But this is equally visionary 
with t)he other. For public opinion 
is doubtless now fixed against high- 
way robbery, but repeal the law 
against this crime, and how long 
could a .man travel and be safe? The 
truth is, laws must be framed for men 
as they are; and so long as they are 
creatures of passion and appetite, you 
never wall effectually succeed in re- 
straining the perverse and selfish, ex- 
cept by superadding to the dictates 
of reason, the sanctions and authority 
of law. 

"The question of an essential alter- 
ation in the license laws, has been 
canvassed for several years by the 
people of the State; and petitions to 
this effect have been again and again 
preferred to the Legislature; and 
your committee is of the opinion that 
the time has arrived when it is proper 
to act upon the subject; it, therefore, 
offers the annexed bill. 

"All which is respectfully submit- 
ted." 



LETTER IV. 

OFFICIAL PLEDGE SIGNERS. 

AUGUSTA, Dec. 31.— (Special cor- 
respondence) — The bill presented by 
General James Appleton to the legis- 
lature of 1837, accompanying a report 
from the committee on license laws ol 
which he was chairman, was entitled 
"An Act to Regulate the Sale of 
Brandy, Rum and any Strong Spirits." 
It was in substance to the effect that 



11 



no person, should be allowed- to sell 
less than 28 gallons of liquors, and that 
these should be delivered and carried 
away at one time." An exception was 
made for physicians and apothecaries, 
who might sell for medicinal and man- 
ufacturing purposes only. The penalty 
in each offense was $20, and if the 
seller refused to pay, "he was liable 
to be imprisoned 30 days." 

The bill did not pass the legislature; 
but the seed thus sown by General 
Appleton was destined to bear fruit, in 
later years. 

Interest steadily grew in this reform 
however, and the following year 220 
petitions, representing 1,700 petitioners, 
prayed for an alteration in the license 
laws, and these were referred to a 
committee. They reported a bill which 
repealed all previous legislation. It 
was entitled, "An Act to Suppress the 
Sale of Ardent Spirits for Common Use 
and was preceded by the following 
preamble: 

"Whereas. Intemperance is a great 
social public evil, and Whereas, It is 
the direct effect of any law which au- 
thorizes or grants a license to sell ar- 
dent spirits for common use, to aug- 
ment and perpetuate this evil, and, 
Whereas, The business of vending ar- 
dent spirits for common use, is sub- 
versive of good order and the public 
peace, Therefore be it enacted, etc. 

The bill was reported provided that 
no one should be permitted to sell any 
ardent spirits to be used as a common 
beverage; the penalty was a fine of 
$10 for each and every offense; and it 
was also provided that any person who 
should, sell or furnish to any other 
person any kind of liquor by which he 
should become intoxicated, the seller 
should pay a fine not exceeding $20. 

The last section provided that the 
bill should be submitted to a vote of 
the people, the first Monday of the 
following November. The act failed of 
passage. It will be noticed, however, 
that this proposed legislation was more 
sweeping than any which had preced- 
ed it, and had a larger formal endorse- 
ment. The people, evidently were more 
generally becoming convinced tha 
something radical and effective must 
be done, in the way of legislation. 

Legislative bodies are prone to follow 
the demands of the people, in making 
laws, rather than to anticipate them. 
So in this case, they did not readily 
adopt the suggestions of the petition 
ers. This Legislature, however, did 
enact a piece of legislation which had 
a strong bearing upon the temperance 
question, although coming properly 
under the head of divorce laws. They 
passed the following act: 

"That divorces shall be decreed, in 
ca^'D cither of the parties shall become 
a common drunkard; and shall so con- 
tinue for the space of three years, 
thereby incapacitating him, or herself 
from making suitable provision for, or 



taking proper care of. his of her fam- 
ily." 

Hon. Nelson Dingley, Jr. 

All efforts of the people of that time 
to change the legislation concerning 
liquor selling, were justified by the 
conditions. Hon. Nelson Dingley, Jr., 
noted as one of the most conservative 
and careful writers, in sketching the 
history of these times said "In 1830, 13 
distilleries in the State manufactured 
1,000,000 gallons of rum (2 gallons to 
each inhabitant). Besides this there 
were consumed 300,000 gallons imported 
and in addition a large amount of 
cider, and other fermented liquors were 
used. In 1833 there were 500 taverns, 
all but 40 of them having open bars. 
In 1830 every store sol.: liquor as freely 
as they sold molasses. In 1832 with a 
population of only 450,000, there were 
2,000 places where intoxicating liquors 
were sold, one grog shop to every 225 
of the population. Their sales 
amounted to $10,000,000 annualij'-, or 
$20 to each inhabitant." 

These facts and figures must have 
impressed themselves upon the minds 
of the foremost men of the State, for 
in the year 1842, members of the 
executive and legislative branches of 
the Government, during the sessions 
of the Legislature, drew up and signed 
the following temperance pledge, 
which is now carefully preserved in 
the archives of the State library, at 
this city. It was embodied in a leath- 
er bound book, devoted solely to this 
matter, and though now showing signs 
of age, must have been at the time, an 
expensive and impressive volume. The 
pledge read: 

Signed the Pledge. 

We, the undersigned, members of 
the executive and legislative depart- 
ments of the Government, hereby 
pledge ourselves to, and with each 
other, to total abstinence from the use 
of all intoxicating liquors as a bever- 
age. 

John Burnham, Gowen Wilson, Jonas 
Paulin, Dominicus Jordan, John Stick- 
ney, Atwood Levanseler, Alpea Red- 
dington, L. Bradley. William M. Lang- 
ley, P. C. Johnson, Phillip Eastman, H. 
Barnard, R. H. Bridgham, Virgie D. 
Parris, Meshach Humphrey, Thomas 
C. Lane, Silas Barnard, Merrill Clough, 
Joel Scott, D. Farnsworth, Timothy F. 
Hanscom, William Ayers, Thomas S. 
Pollen, Jacob Somes, N. O. Otis, Smith 
Fairfield, Joseph Brown, W. R. Frye, 
Charles Andsers, Turner; Grover Par- 
kins, Jr., Hallowell; Jesse Smart 
(Col.), Troy; William T. Johnson, Au- 
gusta; John H. Loring, Guilford; 
Fbenezer Otis, St. George; John C. 
Knowlton, Liberty; William Huff, Jr., 
Kennebunkport; Parker Tuck, Sedg- 
wick; Nathaniel G. Dunning - , Freeport; 
A. D. Atwood, Orrington, H. C. Babb, 
Westbrook; B. D. Eastman, Wesley; 
Joseph Miller, Lihcolnville; Nathaniel 



12 



Page, Pembroke; Ebenezer Drake, 
Paris; Ebenezer B. Pike, Litchfield; 
Isaac Poole, Edgecomb; John E. 
Baxter, Wilton; Leroy H. Foss, 
Hancock; Sprout Hapgood, "Water- 
ford; William Perkins, Bracksville; 
Benjamin Gray, Penobscot; J. S. Moon. 
Ellsworth; Jeremiah Mitchell, North 
Yarmouth; Benjamin Heald, Sumner; 
S. L. Waterhouse, Scarborough; Jason 
Puller, Boothbay; John P. Mereen, 
Phippsburg; Leonard Haskell, Steuben; 
John Carr, Bowdoin; John R. Nutting, 
Danville; Louis Pitchen, Belmont; John 
Arnold, Jr., Augusta; James Pope, Ma- 
chias; Benjamin Tucker, Jr., Norway; 
James Frost, Livingston; William 
Thomas, Vinalhaven; Amos Allen, Blue 
Hill; George Theobold, Dresden; 
Joshua S. Turner, Leeds; Benjamin B. 
Meader, Brunswick; H. Greenlow, Bris- 
tol; Philip S. Lowell, Abbott; Nathan 
Pattangall, Perry; M. O. Lee, Bucks- 
port; John Hill, Waterborough; Joseph 
Crooken, Foxcroft; Washington Mc- 
Intyre, Bingham; George Whitney, 
Pittsfield; James Jaynes, Dixmont; 
Abel M. Bryant, Kennebunk; David 
Dunn, Poland; Benjamin White, Mont- 
ville; Samuel B. Morison, Livermore; 
Henry T. Knowles, Corrinna; M. F. 
Hogsclon, New Portland; Matheas Ul- 
ran, Appleton; Rufus G. Kellock. No. 
11. Range 5, Aroostook; Peter F. San- 
born. Readfield; Francis Purington, 
Falmouth; Henry Merritt, Brunswick; 
Algernon S. Austin. Newcastle; Ne- 
hemiah Abbott. Belfast; Oliver Dow, 
Buxton; Joshua Young, WiLcasset; 
Henry Partridge, Orland; Thomas J. 
Cox; Pittsfield; Obed Durrell, Vassal- 
boro; John Fisher, Gouldsborough; 
John Hight, Athens; Charles 5. Bart- 
lett, Berwick; Jesse Stevens, Sebec; 
John Hight, Athens; Charles E. 
Bartlett, Berwick; Jesse Stevens, 
Sebec; Henry Pennell, Gray; 

Philip Norris, Whitefield; Asa 
B. Bates, Fairfield; Joseph Raines, 
New Gloucester; Hiram Chapman, No- 
bleborough; George W. Barrows, Otis- 
field; Abner H. Wade, Woolwich; 
Moses Page. Belgrade; Isaac Merrill, 
Hollis; Joseph Maddox, Herman; Tem- 
ple Tebbets, Lewiston; James Nichols, 
Whiting; Jeremiah Parker, Gorham; 
Moses Hanscom, Waterville ; Gideon 
Forel, Jefferson; Aaron Hinckley, 
Topsham; Isaac Allard, Frankfort; 
Samuel Hanscom, China; Samuel G. 
Bailey, Pittston; Mark Merrill, Madi- 
son: Joseph Neally, Monroe; John T. 
Newt, Lincoln; Frances Caldwell. An- 
son; Abel Hey wood, Mercer; H. C. 
Barnes, Portland; H. W. Farrar, Wind- 
sor; James Wyman, Lubec; Charles 
Reynolds, Garland; Asa Smiley, Sid- 
ney; Joseph Warren, Durham; Joseph 
Dickerson, Prospect; Nathaniel Cham- 
berlain, Lebanon; George P. Sewall, 
Oldtown; Moses L. McDonald, Limer- 
ick; Cyrus Goss, Bangor; Joseph Wa- 
terhouse. Cumberland; Moses Dodge, 
Sedgwick; Merrill Lamb, Greene; 



Theodore Stinerony, Gray; Joseph 
Carlton, Sangerville. 

1843 — Benjamin Fales, Thomaston; 
Jeremiah Mitchell, North Yarmouth; 
Aca Smith, Mattawamkeag; Thomas 
Pray, Detroit; William Bragg, Tur- 
ner; William O. Grant, Litchfield; 
John I. Perry, Oxford; Henry B. Hart, 
Portland; Nathaniel Emmery, Water- 
borough; Benjamin H. Thomas, New- 
burgb; James C. Madigan, Newcastle; 
Thomas W.hite, Whitefield; Charles 
Morse, Wilton; Simeon Bailey, Dur- 
ham; James Crockett, Vinalhaven; 
Joseph Baker, Jr., Orrington; Henry 
Perkins, Windsor; Godein Perkins, 
Lewiston; Jedidiah Goodwin, South 
Berwick; Thomas Bunker, Cranberry 
Isle; Abner Brown, Monson; William 
Brown, Machias; Nathaniel W. Gould. 
Embden; John Clements, Monroe ; 
Ivory Bragdon, Shapleigh; Adam 
Clark, Strong; C. A. Russ, China; 
Sturgis Nye. Fairfield; Isaac Fairfield, 
Vanceborough; John Hewett, Farm- 
ing-ton; I. F. Jordan, Passadumkeag: 
George W. Perkins, Jr., Hallowell; 
Solomon Brooks, York; Henry David- 
son, Wales; James McLellan. Jr.. 
Newfield; Amos B. Simpson, Sullivan: 
James H. Haines, Burnham; Asa C. 
Emery. Montville; Philip M. Garcelon, 
"Webster; Nathan Knight. Lincolnville; 
Isaac S. Dailey, Livermore; James O. 
L. Foster. Lewiston. assistant secre- 
tary to Senate; Jabez T. Pike. East- 
port; Samuel Woodson. Winthrop, 
(Whig); Frederick A. "Wood Lebanon. 
(Loco.): Alpheus S. Holding. Casco; 
Byron W. Darling. Blue Hill: Leonard 
Stoddard. Dover; RandaH Jones. 
Jefferson: John Bridges, Corbin: Sam- 
uel Merrill, Biddeford; Sam. Coburn. 
Parkman; Alfred Soule, Free port; 
Jesse Paige, Camden. 



LETTER V. 

MAINE'S FIRST PROHIBITORY LAW. 

AUGUSTA, Jan. 1.— (Special cor- 
respondence.) — It has been claimed 
that the law of 1851 was Maine's first 
Prohibitory Law. But as a matter 
of strict historical accuracy, the Leg- 
islature of 1846 passed a law in the 
prohibitory form, but without the 
"search and seizure" classes. 

This sweeping change was a distinct 
advance over all previous legislation 
regarding liquors. It was designed 
not to regulate, but to restrict and 
was entitled, An Act To Restrict the 
Sale of Intoxicating Liquors. Under 
this law no person could sell unless 
licensed, and, if licensed, only for 
medicinal and mechanical purposes. 
The laiw, however, did not apply to 
wine or spirituous liquors which were 
imported into the United States from 
any foreign port, if they were sold in 
■quantities not less than 28 gallons. 
and carried away at one time. 

The penalty for selling without a 



13 



license was not less than $1, nor more 
than $20. If a person was once con- 
victed, and upon complaint he was 
convicted for a second offense, he was 
to be punished by a fine of not less 
than $5, nor more than $20, and was 
obliged to give a bond in the sum of 
not less than $50, that he would not, 
during the next six months, again vio- 
late the provisions of the act. 

The selectmen, clerk and treasurer of 
every town, were made a licensing 
board, and they could license under 
such rules and regulations as they 
deemed necessary one person "of good 
moral character" for every town hav- 
ing less than 1,000 inhabitants, two 
for every town having over one and 
less than three thousand, and not less 
than three nor more than five for 
every town having more than three 
thousand inhabitants, to be sellers of 
wine, brandy, rum, or other strong 
liquors, to be used for medicinal and 
mechanical purposes, and no other. 
The persons licensed were obliged to 
give a bond in the sum of $600, with 
two sureties. The person licensed 
could not sell to drunkards, persons 
non compus, or any Indian, unless in 
a case of sickness, under direction of 
a regular practicing physician. 

This act was signed by Gov. John 
W. Dana, a Democrat, who that year 
had been elected over David Bronsoh, 
Whig, and Samuel Fessenden, Liberty. 
Judge "Woodbury Davis of the Supreme 
Court in writing of this law, said: 

"The Maine Law, m its prohibitory 
form, but without the search and 
seizure clauses, was first enacted in 
this State in 1846. This first law was 
extensively enforced; and it prepared 
the way for the law of 1851. Before 
that time, the old Temperance reform 
and the Washingtonian movement, 
had each successfully reached its cli- 
max, and, notwithstanding all the 
good which was done in reforming the 
habits of the people, there were still 
large numbers accustomed to use in- 
toxicating liquors; and there was real- 
ly no legal restraint upon the sale. 
It was permitted in almost every 
town; nearly every tavern, in country 
and in city, had its bar; and at al- 
most every village and corner was a 
grogshop; and, in most places of that 
kind, more than one, where old men 
and young spent their earnings in dis- 
sipation, men helplessly drunk in the 
streets, and by the wayside, were a 
common sight: and at elections, at 
military trainings and musters, and 
at other public gatherings, there were 
scenes of debauchery and riot enough 
to make one ashamed of his race." 

The effect of the enactment of this 
law of 1846 was that the traffic in liq- 
uors disappeared in many sections of 
the State. This was especially true 
in the rural districts, although those 
engaged in the business generally ex- 
pected that the laws would be en- 



forced and moderated their sales, ac- 
cordingly. 

Absolute Prohibition. 

The first petition which called for 
the absolute prohibition of the sale of 
intoxicating liquors, so far as there 
is any record to be found, was pre- 
sented to the Legislature of this year 
of 1846. It was signed by Lydia Mer- 
rill and James Merrill, dated at White- 
field, Lincoln County, June 15, 1846. It 
read as follows, and is here presented 
as forming a part of the Prohibitory 
Law history: 

To the Honorable Senate and House 
of Representatives in the State of 
Maine in Legislature assembled: 
To you, gentlemen, next to Divine 
Providence, we should look for pro- 
tection and safety. Inasmuch as you 
have been appointed to legislate for 
the benefit and welfare of the State 
of Maine, which, we think, includes 
the whole papulation; and, among 
these, one-half we suppose are fe- 
males, and a .majority of the whole 
population may reasonably be sup- 
posed to be children. Now, gentlemen, 
we pray you to interpose your influ- 
ence in behalf of the whole popula- 
tion and more especially on account of 
those not directly represented in your 
honorable body, viz.: Women and 
children, and save us from the de- 
structive influence of intemperance. 
Did you but realize the grief, fear 
and torment that await many families 
in the State on the arrival of a hus- 
band or father intoxicated, we think 
you would listen to this, our earnest 
prayer to you for relief. We know- 
there are a vast number of mothers 
within this State who have no hope 
but in the reformation of their de- 
luded husbands. Those poor mothers 
are cast down too low to petition, or 
even hope for relief; they are too 
broken hearted to think of better 
days; they have not the wherewith 
to clothe themselves; their children 
are half starved and half naked; they 
cannot send them to school to meet- 
ing or to any other place of mental 
improvement. Their lot is a hard 
one indeed. We will not pretend to 
describe the various steps that 
brought them down, but rum was the 
"Alpha" and will be the "Omega" of 
their misery, unless the powerful anm 
of government interpose in their be- 
half. Gentlemen, you all know of 
some cases of the kind which cannot 
be exaggerated by a description on 
paper. O! how it pains the heart of 
a mother to know that he whom she 
has ever looked + o for protection and 
support is senseless and prostrate in 
the gutter, or a raving maniac at a 
g-rog shop; and how our destinies are 
linked together; all of us have re- 
lations or acquaintances more or less 
involved in the general ruin that 
threatens to prostrate the best ener- 
gies of the State, and utterly to anni- 



14 



hilate thousands of families and their 
descendants for all time to come — all 
of whom might be saved; and you, 
gentlemen, might save them! We 
therefore pray you to abolish the sale 
and use of ardent spirits in this State 
•by your votes! and make it a penal 
transgression to sell or use it as a 
-beverage. T.he absolute necessity of 
industry, frugality and economy in 
this cold Country calls loudly for 
reformation. The present policy of the 
Nation by which we shall doubtless be 
frequently involved in war with other 
•nations, admonishes us, as a State, to 
abandon the use of that maddening 
stimulant. 

Maine, like all other countries, will 
be wealthy and respected if she is 
temperate; if not, whole families of 
Maine folks may be seen ere long 
traveling in misery in a foreign land, 
as the Canadian is found here. Gen- 
tlemen, are you not interested, either 
personally or relatively, in this re- 
form? Will 50 years pass by and no 
poor. ragged. worthless inebriate 
stammer out his anathema on his an- 
cestors by saying, "My father was a 
senator in '46," or, "my uncle was a 
representative," or, "My grandfather 
was a G-overnor?" We beseech you 
again in behalf of all living — and fur- 
ther in behalf of your children yet 
unborn — to stamp an indelible annihi- 
lation on the infernal trade. Let this 
"'first summer session" crown them- 
selves with unfading laurels; let the 
songs of all future time "chant a re- 
quiem to their memory when they are 
blessed in heaven; let them forever 
enjoy the highest seat in the pantheon 
of eternal repose. Then grant our 
prayer. O! give the daughters of this 
State kind and sober husbands; give 
them dutiful and temoerate sons, and 
fill their hearts with joy. and the 
blessings of millions of maids and 
mothers will pour upon you like a 
golden shower, and the ''first summer 
session" bp a lullaby of their cradle 
through all time to come. 



LETTER VI* 

UNDER REAL PROHIBITION. 
Gen. NEAL DOW. 

AUGUSTA, Jan. 2. (Special Corres- 
pondence.) — When in 1847 temperance 
reform had so far been endorsed by 
the people that the members of the 
Executive Department and the State 
Legislature were willing to affix their 
signatures to a document pledging to- 
tal abstinence, the temperance work- 
ers felt assured that the war was soon 
to be opened for the accomplishment 
of their plans. 

It was now evident that a majority 
of the people of the State favored 
more drastic legislation against liquor 
and each year more members of the 
Legislature were elected because it 



was known that they were favorable 
to the passage of laws which should 
not only regulate, but rigidly restrict, 
the sale of all intoxicating liquors. 
This was, no doubt, accelerated by a 
great convention held in Augusta in 
1847. Governor Dana was the chair- 
man and Rev. Dr. Dright, one of the 
ablest divines of the day, read a very 
strong and powerful argument favor- 
able to prohibition. This meeting was 
attended by people from all over the 
State, and was discussed not only 
through New England, but its story 
was spread through the Country. 

By an act of the Legislature of 1848, 
the word "intoxicating" was first 
placed in the statute. An act was 
passed to the effect that the words 
"or intoxicating" should be inserted in 
the section restricting those who sold 
liquors, so that it should read "no 
person shall be allowed at anv time, 
to sell by himself or his clerk, rum or 
other spirituous or intoxicating liq- 
uors, or any liquors a part of which 
is spirituous or intoxicating, except 
as hereinafter provided." This was 
done because the words "spirituous 
liquors" and "ardent spirits," which 
had formerly been used, were not con- 
sidered sufficiently definite to include 
fermented and brewed, as well as dis- 
tilled liciuors. 

Act of 1849. 

In 1849, the following act was 
passed: "If any person not being duly 
licensed therefor shall sell or expose 
for sale, during the continuance of 
any cattle show or fair, and within 
two miles thereof, any intoxicating 
drinks, and shall upon complaint be 
convicted of such offense, before any 
justice of the peace, he shall be pun- 
ished by imprisonment in the county 
jail, not exceeding 10 days." 

During the closing hours of the Leg- 
islature of 1850 a bill was passed 
which provided "that any justice of 
the peace, on complaint made to him, 
in writing, under oath, by three per- 
sons, that they have reason to believe, 
and do believe, that intoxicating liq- 
uors are sold in violation of law, des- 
ignating the persons and places, may 
issue his warrant to any officer, em- 
powered by law to serve the same, 
commanding him to search the places 
designated, for such liquors, and the 
apparatus of selling, ana other evi- 
dences of a violation of the laws, in 
relation to intoxicating liquors." 

This act was vetoed by Governor 
Dana. In his message to the Legisla- 
ture he stated that he objected to 
"the whole system of legislation of 
which this bill forms a part, because, 
not being enforceable, it cultivates a 
general disrespect and disregard of 
law; because it weakens the moral 
sense of the community by inducing 
one class to wink at the suppression 
of truth, to encourage falsehood and 



15 



even perpetrate perjury, for the pur- 
pose of evading its penalties, while it 
induces another class to defraud, de- 
ceive, and hold out false pretences 
that its penalties may be imposed; 
and, finally, because, while it does 
all this, avowedly for the suppression 
of intemperance, it, in fact, increases 
it by giving force and energy to man's 
natural inclination to indulge his cu- 
pidity or his appetite, in selling or 
drinking, without imposing any ef- 
fectual restraint." 

It is very suggestive of the public 
sentiment of that time that Governor 
Dana in this message, said: "Immedi- 
ately on the announcement that I had 
withheld my signature from the bill, 
petitions signed by more than 3,000 
persons were presented to me, urging 
its approval." 

It is an interesting fact that under 
the same date that Governor Dana re- 
turned this veto he also sent to the 
Legislature a veto of an act which 
provided that "on minor under the age 
of 16 years shall be employed in any 
labor for any manufacturing or other 
corporations, for more than 10 hours 
in a day; and if any manufacturer or 
agent or other officer of any corpora- 
tion shall employ such minor in viola- 
tion of the provisions of this section, 
he or they shall be punished by a fine 
not exceeding $100." 

A Prohibitory Law to suppress the 
sale and manufacture of intoxicating 
liquors was now a favorite topic for 
discussion, at mass meetings, from the 
pulpit, and through the press. In 1851 
what has been popularly known as the 
first Prohibitory Law was enacted, un- 
der the title of "An Act for the Sup- 
pression of Drinking Houses, and Tip- 
pling Shops." This act provided that 
the selectmen of towns and the mayor 
and aldermen of cities on the first 
Monday of May, annually, should ap- 
point some suitable person as an 
agent to sell at some central and con- 
venient place spirits, wines, or other 
intoxicating liquors, to be used for 
medicinal and mechanical purposes, 
and for no other." The agent was to 
receive such compensation as the 
board decided, and conform to such 
rules and regulations as the board pre- 
scribed. He was to hold his office for 
one year, unless removed by the 
board, as he could be at any time, at 
pleasure of the board. Here was the 
inception, no doubt, . of the liquor 
agency system. 

A person who w T as convicted for the 
third time for violation of this law 
was obliged to pay a fine of $20 and 
costs, and be imprisoned not less than 
three, nor more than six months. No 
person who was engaged in the unlaw- 
ful selling of liquor was competent to 
sit upon a jury on any case arising 
under the act. When three .persons 
made complaint justices and judges of 



the Municipal and the Police Court, 
should issue warrants for the search 
for liquors; in ;he case of a dwelling 
house, one of the three witnesses was 
obliged to testify to some act of sale 
of intoxicating liqujrs within at least 
one month of the time of making the 
sale. 

The law provided that all payments 
or compensations for liquors sold in 
violation of law should be held to 
have been received in violation of law 
and to be null and void. No action 
w r as maintainable in any court in the 
State for the recovery or possession of 
intoxicating liquors, or the value 
thereof." This act being more radical 
than any before, was discussed at 
great length by the Legislature, and in 
the press, and by the people. The mor- 
al forces of the State were strongly 
in favor of the bill. Every possible 
objection was brought to bear, in the 
arguments employed by the opponents. 
The fight was a bitter one. 

It is not to be supposed that those 
who were financially interested in the 
sale of liquors would consent to the 
passage of this act without fighting it 
to the last ditch. Then, as now, cu- 
pidity and profit entered largely into 
the acts of interested parties. Some of 
the members of the Legislature un- 
doubtedly voted for the bill, believing 
and hoping that' Governor Hubbard 
would veto it. They could thus be 
able to secure the approbation of con- 
stituents who favored the measure, 
and their own real desires would be 
accomplished by the killing of the act 
by executive authority. 

Became a Law. 

Under a Democratic administration 
the bill became a law\ The vote in 
the house was 86 in favor, and 40 
against, and in the Senate 18 voted for 
the bill, and 10 were opposed. Thoso 
who expected that Governor Hubbard 
would veto the bill knew little of hi' 
character. He took the logical posi- 
tion that the people of the State de- 
manded this legislation, and that ho 
would sign the act, which he did, on 
June 2. 1851. 

The bill containing this law was 
drafted by Gen. Neal Dow of Portland. 
Incorporated in the bill were the 
search and seizure enactments, which 
were not a part of the law of 1846. 
Gen. Dow had for a number of years 
been interested in temperance work. 
His first public identification with the 
reform was in connection with the 
Maine Temperance Union. He first 
advocated the prohiMtory principle in 
1839, when he made an address before 
the Board of Aldermen in Portland, 
arguing that the question of license, or 
no license, in that City, should be re 
ferred to a vote of the people. 

The result of this new 7 law, and its 
probable workings were anxiously 
awaited by the p?ople, who had so per- 



l(i 



gistently worked to obtain it. It was 
not long in coming. A confiscation was 
made at Bangor, by order of the may- 
or, and on July 14, the city marshal 
destroyed 10 casks of liquor, in the 
presence of a large crowd of people. 
Shortly after this, Gen. Dow, who was 
Mayor of Portland, issued a search 
warrant, and personally directed the 
taking of $2,000 worth of liquors, which 
were openly destroyed, and a writer of 
the time says, "witnessed in respectful 
silence by a large concourse of peo- 
ple." The new law was an actuality, 
and began to make itself felt more in- 
tensely from that day. 

From that time until his death. Gen- 
eral Neal Dow was an earnest, bold 
advocate of the principle of prohibi- 
tion, and he was recognized ac the ac- 
tual author of the Maine Prohibitory 
Liaw, and became known, not only 
throughout this Country, but through- 
out civilized Europe, as the foremost 
temperance worker of his time. The 
Maine law was insolubly linked to the 
name of Neal Dow, and where one is 
spoken of, the other is discussed. 



LETTER VIL 

HISTORICAL VICTORY FOR 
TEMPERANCE. 

AUGUSTA, Jan. 4.— (Special Cor- 
respondence.) — As has been already 
seen, the decided position taken by 
General James Appleton, and his me- 
morial to the Legislature in 1837, had 
paved the way for prohibitory legisla- 
tion. 

It is fair to assume that a majority 
of the voters of the State had come to 
the conclusion that the time was 
past for attempted regulation of the 
liquor traffic, and that the only ef- 
fective course must be its entire prohi- 
bition. The position of these men 
was well expressed by one of their 
number in 1852 who in a public ad- 
dress stated the opinion of the advo- 
cates of prohibition as follows: 

"Because society has a right to pro- 
tect itself from one of the greatest 
— if not the very greatest — evils ever 
inflicted upon humanity; because so- 
ciety should not protect such an evil 
by acts of legislation, or make that 
legal which good men are seeking to 
remove it by moral means ; because so- 
ciety should not attempt to regulate but 
should seek to remove it; because so- 
ciety has a right to make use of all 
proper means to prevent or remove an 
evil, and, because, if necessary, in 
doing tills, it has a right to render 
property embarked in a particular 
business worthless, or to destroy it. 
On these broad principles I advocate 
the propriety of endeavoring to obtain 
the passage of such laws as shall ef- 
fectually prohibit, under proper and 
effective penalties, this whole traffic. 
I start no metaphysical and abstract 
questions about its being a sin per so 



to drink wine, or brandy, or any other 
intoxicating drink. I look at the 
broad fact of the evil in the land and 
say that an evil so great, ought to 
be restrained. That the principles of 
legislation applied to other subjects 
ought to be applied to this; and that. 
there is no conceivable evil that would 
be protected, patronized, shielded, reg- 
ulated, as this is in a civilized and 
Christian land." 

Among those who worked and made 
sacrifices for the cause of prohibition 
in these early days no one was more 
prominent or more influential than 
General Neal Dow. As early as 183° 
he advocated orohibition before the 
Portland Board of Aldermen. Through 
his efforts the question of license or 
no license was submitted to a vote 
of the citizens of Portland. In a total 
vote of 1,163 "no license" was defeated 
by a majority of only 35. In 1843 Gen- 
eral Dow again brought this question 
before the citizens of Portland and 
the authorities of that City refused 
to grant any 'more licenses to sell in- 
toxicating liquors. The change of 
sentiment upon this question was 
shown in the simple statement that 
from a minority of 35 in 1839 on this 
question the vote changed to a major- 
ity of 440 at a vote taken in 1843, four 
years later. 

At his own expense in 1843, Gen. 
Dow circulated petitions to the Legis- 
lature asking "That the traffic of in- 
toxicating drinks might be held and 
adjudged as an infamous crime." In 
February. 1844, there was a large 
meeting before the committee of the 
Legislature and General Dow advo- 
cated the principles of his bill. The 
House reported a bill favorable to the 
views advanced by General Dow but 
the Senate failed to pass it. 

In the Fall of the same year. 1844. 
General Dow again appeared before a 
committee at Augusta, but he met 
with no better success. During that 
vear, in 1845, and in 1846. the friends 
of prohibition did a vast amount of 
work in all parts of the State. At the 
session of the Legislature held in 
July 1846, General Dow again ap- 
peared before the legislative commit- 
tee and in favor of his plan presented 
one petition which was 59 feet long, 
and had upon it 3.800 names, most of 
these having been obtained by the 
personal work of General Dow. This 
petition was suspended on either side 
of the speaker's chair. Other petitions 
were presented so that the total num- 
ber of sisrners in favor of orohibition 
at that time was over 40,000. The bill 
abolishing t'h° iv^f-p .eve-tern was 
presented, and .passed the House by a 
vote of 81 to 42, and the Senate by 
a vote of 23 to 5. 

Attempt To Have Law Repealed. 

The effect of the legislation of 1846 
was at once evident, although the 
penalties were so light that they did 



17 



not produce as strong an impression 
as was hoped for. In 1847 the liquor 
dealers endeavored to have the law 
repealed and obtained petitions con- 
taining- 7,000 names. Friends of pro- 
hibition had many remonstrances. A 
committee meeting was held in Au- 
gusta before a great audience. Gen- 
eral Dow made a speech which a writ - 
er of that time described as "one of 
burning irony, withering rebuke and 
caustic satire." The committee re- 
ported a bill for repealing the law. It 
was refused a second reading in the 
House and never reached the Senate. 

In 1849 a more stringent bill was 
presented, which passed both branches 
of the Legislature, but was vetoed by 
Governor Dana, and it is said that 
this act upon his part rendered him 
so unpopular that it ended his political 
career. 

With a bill drafted by his own 
hand, General Dow appeared before 
the Legislature in 1850, and this bill 
was afterwards known as The Maine 
Law. The bill without any alteration 
was adopted by the House. There 
was a tie in the Senate, and the bill 
failed to become a law. 

For the sixth time, in May, 1851, 
General Dow addressed the Legisla- 
ture upon the subject of prohibition. 
This matter had been discussed in 
such a way through the State that it 
was the issue upon which the elec- 
tion had turned, and all that was 
now needed was the action of the 
Legislature to give authority to the 
will of the people. The bill was vio- 
lently and bitterly opposed. Senator 
Gary was the only man in the Senate 
who spoke against the measure. He 
said: 

"Why should the Lord Mayor of 
Portland come down here with his 
rum bill, all cut and dried, for this 
Legislature to enact into law? If 
this bill passes, he expects to be the 
greatest toad in the puddle. This 
mandate, this ukase, was cut and dried 
for the adoption of the legislation, 
by the Mayor of Portland, who was 
before the license committee pricking 
them up to report in its favor, and 
is he to be allowed to dictate to a 
Democratic Legislature what enact- 
ment it shall pass, or what policy it 
shall pursue, on this question?" 

The House quickly passed the bill 
by a vote of 86 to 40. The Senate, 
without offering a single amendment 
or making an alteration, voted in its 
favor by a vote of 18 to 10. Governor 
Hubbard signed the bill June 2. From 
the time the bill had been taken up 
\n the Legislature until it was enact- 
ed into a law, only three days had 
elapsed. 

An address to the citizens of Port- 
land in September of that year de- 
clared that there were no liquors then 



openly sold in that City, and that 
there were but few places where they 
were secretly sold. Friends of the 
law claimed that its enforcement had 
saved the people of Maine four mil- 
lion dollars annually. 



LETTER VIIL 

GOVERNOR JOHN HUBBARD. 

AUGUSTA, Jan. 5.— (Special corres- 
pondence.) — In this article it is prop- 
er to speak more at length concerning 
Governor John Hubbard, who signed 
the Prohibitory Law of 1851. 

John Hubbard was born in Readfield, 
Maine, March 22, 1794. He was grad- 
uated from Dartmouth College in 1816, 
and from the Philadelphia Medical 
school in 1822. Before beginning the 
practice of medicine he studied for a 
year in the hospitals of Philadelphia. 
In 1830 Dr. Hubbard settled in Hallo- 
well, and remained there the rest of 
his life. He was a man of impressive 
appearance, standing six feet two in- 
ches, straight as an arrow, with large 
head, black hair and eyes. He was in 
many ways a remarkable man. He 
had unusual physical strength, great 
ability, a strong mind, and was noted 
for his high character, independence 
and sincerity. 

In early life John Hubbard united 
with the Democratic party, and in 1843 
was elected to the State Senate, al- 
though his district had usually had a 
large Whig majority. In 1849 he was 
nominated as a Democratic candidate 
for governor. The Whig candidate 
was Elijah A. Hamlin and George S. 
Talbot was nominated by the Free 
Soil Party. Mr. Hubbard was elected. 
In 1850 he was renominated. At that 
time, the Legislature began its session 
in May, but in 1850 the annual meet- 
ing of the Legislature was changed to 
meet on the first Wednesday of Janu- 
ary, and it was also provided that the 
Governor and other State officers, 
should hold their positions until Janu- 
ary, 1852. The Prohibitory Law of 
1846 was followed in 1849 by one more 
severe, which gave an unrestricted 
right to search all places for evidence 
of sale, and prohibited sales under 
severe penalties. That act was vetoed 
by Governor Dana in caustic language. 

When the law of 1851 came up for a 
vote in the Legislature some of the 
prominent Democrats voted for the 
bill, believing that the Governor would 
veto it. But he said that it was evi- 
dent that a clear majority of the peo- 
ple desired the law, and that he had 
no right to veto it, either for party or 
personal reasons. In speaking of this 
matter, he said: 

"Two sessions of the Legislature 
have been occupied since the veto of 
the preceding act in discussing and 
maturing the subject. It passed both 
houses at the recent session, by a vote 
of about two-thirds. It could not, 



IS 



then, be looked upon as of that hasty 
and inconsiderate legislation which 
alone can authorize the interposition 
of a veto power — a power at all times 
somewhat arbitrary, and one which the 
constitution did not contemplate as a 
part of the ordinary process of legisla- 
tion. 

"There could be," he said, "no 
doubt that the people through their 
representatives, have a right to enact 
a law to abate or suppress so mon- 
strous a scourge as intemperance. And 
there could be no doubt that the law 
in question was within the limits of 
their constitutional power." 

The Prohibitory Aict known as the 
Maine law and entitled, "An Act for 
the Suppression of Drinking Houses 
and Tippling Shops," was presented to 
Governor Hubbard on June 2, 1851, at 
ten o'clock in the forenoon. At eleven 
o'clock he signed it, and it became a 
law. 

Law of the People. 

Speaking at that time concerning 
tlhe law, Governor Hubbard said: "The 
Maine Law is the law of the people. 
Deliberately matured by them through 
a series of years, and enacted by the 
only organ authorized by the consti- 
tution and the spirit of our govern- 
ment to transform the wishes of the 
people into law— the Senate and House 
of Representatives in Legislature as- 
sembled, by overwhelming majorities. 
It is a constitutional law. I am pre- 
pared to enforce it as it now stands. I 
am opposed to its repeal, until it shail 
have had a fair trial before the peo- 
ple. I have always approved the ob- 
ject of this law, 'the suppression of 
drinking houses and tippling shops,' 
and am therefore, opposed to any 
amendments which would impair its 
efficiency; while I am nevertheless, of 
the opinion that it is susceptible of 
amendment that would not only not 
impair its efficiency but would render 
it easier of execution, and more ef- 
ficient." 

After the law had been in force for 
some time, Governor Hubbard gave it 
as his opinion that no candid and ob- 
serving person could deny that the law 
had done good. "The object," he said, 
"the suppression of drinking houses 
and tippling shops, must surely meet 
the approbation of every well ordered 
■mind, and the execution of it confined 
to such object, and within the limits 
of construction given it by the ju- 
diciary, could certainly give no offense 
to anyone whose opinions were worthy 
of regard." 

Maine Leads. 

In January, 1852, the annual con- 
vention of the State Temperance So- 
ciety was held in Augusta. Governor 
Hubbard was invited to be present 
and presided over some of the ses- 
sions. He was received with the 



greatest enthusiasm. In the course 
of his remarks he said: "The subject 
of temperance has long been a subject 
of effort, by means of pledges, moral 
suasion and other modes of action. 
But there is a limit beyond which, 
.private and associate effort cannot go. 
The reform cannot be carried on 
whilst the inducements are held out on 
either side. Maine, true to her motto, 
has undertaken to direct; she has 
taken the first step in legislating upon 
this subject with a view of destroying 
the creature itself." Governor Hub- 
bard said he would not discuss at 
large the constitutionality or expedi- 
ency of the law. He would only say 
in regard to the constitutionality of 
the law that, "if we can legislate for 
the extermination of ravenous beasts 
we may for the extermination of this 
greatest of all evils; which reduces 
the human form divine to a condition 
worse than that of savages. Congress 
ha3 the power to regulate commerce, 
but not to determine what shall be 
the subjects of commerce. The State 
may prohibit those articles of trade 
which are detrimental to community, 
and legislate for the protection of its 
own citizens. He assured the meet- 
ing that he was with them in all 
measures coming strictly within the 
power of the State to control this 
great evil. The power of the State is 
as broad and deep as is the necessity 
for protecting the lives and the health, 
the physical and intellectual energies 
of her citizens, the morals and the 
religion of the Prince of Peace." 

One of the speakers at this conven- 
tion was Anson P. Morrill, who at that 
time was a Democrat, but he said 
that when the question of temperance 
and prohibition came to the front he 
should stand by them if it knocked 
every stone from the foundations of 
the party. 

. Another speaker at this great con- 
vention was General Samuel Fessen- 
den of Portland, one of the ablest 
men of his* time, and one of those 
who thoroughly interested in the 
subject of temperance and prohibition. 
At that time it was argued that the 
Maine law was not constitutional. 
General Fessenden told the authori- 
ties that he had looked into that part 
of the matter and that he had no 
fears but that the courts would de- 
clare the law to be constitutional. He 
praised the work of Neal Dow as the 
author of the law and spoke highly 
of the courage and independence 
shown by Governor Hubbard in sign- 
ing the act. which he declared was 
the will of the large majority of the 
people of the State. 

Governor Hubbard was among the 
first to suggest as a means of check- 
ing intemperance, ^hat sellers of drams 
should be held directly responsible for 
damages caused by the sale. He al- 
ways insisted that the Prohibitory 
Law had done good, and that this 



10 



could not be denied by any candid and 
observing - person. 

Governor Hubbard's independent 
action upon the subject of the Maine 
law aroused against him the violent 
opposition of its enemies in his own 
party. He was renominated in 1852, 
although bitterly opposed in conven- 
tion. He received a larger number of 
votes at the election which followed 
than at either of his previous elections. 
There were four candidates in the field, 
and the election of G-overnor as no one 
of the candidates had a popular ma- 
jority, devolved upon the Legislature. 
Through a combination of Democrats 
and Whigs, the Whig candidate, Wil- 
liam J. Crosby, was elected. From 
that time until Hamlin was elected, in 
1856, no Governor was elected by a 
popular vote, Crosby (Whig), Anson P. 
Morrill, (Maine Law), and Wells, 
(Dem.) who served only one year, 
were elected by the Legislature. 

With the exception of Wells, only 
one Democrat since the time of Hub- 
bard has been elected Governor, and 
that was in 1879, when Alonzo Garee- 
lon was elected by the Legislature. 

There is no doubt that Governor 
Hubbard's position upon the land 
question by which he had incurred the 
hostility of men interested in lumber 
operations, had something to do with 
his defeat. It was through his ef- 
forts that Maine purchased the lands 
owned in the State by Massachusetts. 

In 1857 President Buchanan appoint- 
ed Governor Hubbard a special agent 
of the treasury department, to examine 
custom houses, in Maine. This service 
was so important that the next year 
it was extended throughout New Eng- 
land. In 1859 he was appointed by the 
President commissioner under the Rec- 
iprocity Treaty concluded between the 
United States and England June 5, 
1854, and held that position two years. 

In 1864, owing to his views upon the 
questions which grew out of the war, 
he voted for Abraham Lincoln. One of 
his sons lost his life in the Civil War. 
another son, Gen. Thomas H. Hubbard 
was greatly distinguished in the War 
of the Rebellion. Governor Hubbard 
died in February, 1869. 



LETTER IX. 

PROHIBITION VICTORY IN 1852. 

AUGUSTA, Jan. 6.— (Special Cor- 
respondence.) — An amendment to the 
Constitution of Maine in 1851 restored 
the political year to the original time 
of commencement, the first Wednes- 
day of January. Previous to chis 
time, for some years, the sessions of 
the Legislature had been held in the 
Summer On this account there was 
no election in the year 1851, and Gov- 
ernor Hubbard and the State Legisla- 
ture held over. 



In 1852, although there was a strong 
element of his own party opposed to 
him on account of his position on the 
Maine law, Governor Hubbard was 
renominated by the Democrats, and in 
order to try to defeat him, the anti- 
prohibitory element in his own party 
nominated Anson G. Chandler, who 
was known as the Anti-Maine law 
candidate. Gov. Hubbard, however, 
won out, the vote in the election being: 
Hubbard, Dem., 41,999; Crosby, Whig, 
29,127; Chandler, Anti-Maine Law, 21,- 
774; Holmes, Free Soil, 1,617. Scatter- 
ing, 190. The total vote was 94,707, the 
largest which had ever been cast in 
the history of the State in a State 
election, showing the great interest 
the people had in the prohibitory 
question, which was then the para- 
mount issue in the State. 

Here, then, at the very outset, this 
question was practically submitted to 
the people, and prohibition won. 

At the next election Albert Pills- 
bury was the Democratic candidate, 
Willian G. Crosby was the Whig nom- 
inee, and a new party which had 
arisen, known as the Maine Law Par- 
ty, nominated Anson P. Morrill, and 
the Free Soilers renominated Ezekiel 
Holmes. The Democratic party had 
become divided upon this prohibitory 
matter, and with the disaffected 
Whigs had formed the Maine Law 
Partv. Pillsbury received 36,386 votes, 
Crosby 27,061, Morrill 11,027,, Holmes 
8,996, scattering 157. It then required 
a majority to elect, and no one of the 
candidates having a sufficient number, 
the election was thrown into the Leg- 
islature, and Crosby, * Whig, was 
elected Governor by that body. In his 
inaugural address in 1853 Governor 
Crosby laid special stress upon the 
nrohibitory legislation in vigorous 
tRnaruage. and in a fashion which 
plainly expressed his own oninions 
and those of his political following. He 
said: 

Gov. Crosby. 

"In entering upon a new year, it 
may not be inappropriate to call to 
mind, for a few moments, the year 
which is past. It has been an event- 
ful one in the history of our own 
State, of the Union, and the civilized 
world. It will be remembered as the 
year in which, for the first time in 
the nineteenth century, with a strong 
will, the strong arm of a sovereign 
State was stretched forth in the work 
of moral reform — to arrest, in its mid- 
way career, the progress of the moral 
pestilence, intemperance. Other laws 
have been enacted in this and other 
states, whose object and tendency 
were to impede its progress, or con- 
fine it within certain defined limits; 
but it remained for the State of 
Maine to erect, by Legislative enact- 
ments, which, in the hope and faith 
of those who framed them, could be 
neither avoided nor evaded, a bar- 



20 



rier beyond which it was not to pass 
I do not propose to discuss the merits 
of that legislation, I only allude to 
it as an event in the history of the 
State and the Union. That it has 
been productive of evil as well as 
good, is what may be predicted of all 
human legislation. That it has en- 
listed ardent friends in its support, 
that it has met with strong opposition, 
that it has been made the instru- 
ment, in the hands of warm hearted 
philanthropic men, for the redemption 
of the degraded, the temporal salva- 
tion of the almost lost; that it has 
been a moral firebrand in the hands 
of the fanatic, that it has been pros- 
tituted to the base purposes of the 
demagogue, are as much matters of 
authentic history as the existence of 
the law itself. 

"You are aware that some of the 
provisions contained in the law in 
question have been made the subject 
of examination and adjudication in 
two of our sister states, and in courts 
whose judicial opinions are of high 
authority. If the principles recog- 
nized by those courts are to' be adopt- 
ed by the courts of law in our own 
State — and there is reason to believe 
that under a similar state of facts 
they will be — and applied as the rule 
of construction to our own statute, 
those features which have been re- 
garded as being in conflict with the 
constitution, and therefore objection- 
able, have become still more so. In 
such a contingency, the objection 
should come from the friends of the 
law, rather than its opponents. If 
it be true that the material provisions, 
those which are its distinctive charac- 
teristics, which constitute its vitality, 
are in conflict with the constitution, 
and therefore cannot be enforced, the 
law, so far as the attainment of its 
proposed object is concerned, has be- 
come inoperative. That the people of 
the State demand a law sufficiently 
stringent to close effectually every 
haunt of intemperance within its bor- 
ders is undeniably true; but a statute 
whose provisions cannot be enforced 
in courts of law, although even sus- 
tained by the moral sentiment of the 
people, is a dead letter upon the 
statute book. Under such a state of 
facts it obviously becomes the duty of 
all who would promote the cause of 
temperance, so far as it can be pro- 
moted by legislation, to adopt the 
course which will, with the least de- 
lay, settle at once and forever the 
questions which are already, begin- 
ning to embarrass the execution of 
the law, and the still more important 
question, whether the law of the land 
and public sentiment are in harmony. 
The judiciary department of the gov- 
ernment is the source to which the 
constitution directs you for light, and 
to my mind it is the dictate of wis- 
dom to follow that direction. 



"I am not aware that any further 
legislation upon the subject is con- 
templated. If it is, I can only invite 
you to give it the calm and deliberate 
consideration to which a subject mat- 
ter of such magnitude, involving 
principles ' so important and conse- 
quences so momentous — the moral 
welfare and civil rights of the people 
— is entitled. But I would here, as 
elsewhere, in the name of humanity, 
forbid the bans between temperance 
and religious sect or political party." 

Committee's Action. 

The legislature did not take the posi- 
tion assumed by Governor Crosby, that 
no further legislation on this matter 
was necessary, and that part of the 
mess-age relating to the suppression of 
drinking bouses and tippling shops was 
referred to a joint select committee, of 
which J. B. Hill was chairman. The 
report which the committee submitted 
upon this topic was a strong document 
which ably answered Governor Cros- 
by's objections. The committee took 
the position that the basis of Prohibi- 
tory Legislation was rightfully built 
upon the first article of declaration of 
rights in the Maine Constitution which 
declares that the people have "natural, 
inherent and unalienable rights," and 
that among those are "enjoying and 
defending life and liberty, acquiring, 
possessing and protecting property, 
and of pursuing and obtaining safety 
and happiness." 

The report of the committee which 
was submitted under date of March 15, 
1853. follows: 

The Joint Select Committee, to which 
was referred so much of the address 
of the governor, as relates to the act 
for the suppression of drinking houses 
and tippling shops, have had that sub- 
ject under consideration and ask leave 
to report: That they fully respond to 
tht declaration in the address, "that 
the people of the State demand a law 
sufficiently stringent to close effectu- 
ally every haunt of intemperance with- 
in its borders, is undeniably true;" 
they also feel that it is justly a sub- 
ject of congratulation that the State 
of Maine should be the first communi- 
ty "to erect by legislative enactments, 
which, in the hope and faith of those 
who framed them, could be neither 
avoided nor evaded, a barrier beyond 
which intemperance was not to pass." 
It has been the object of the commit- 
tee, in preparing the act which they 
now submit, fully to sustain the honor 
of the State in being the first of the 
sister states, to enact an efficient law 
for the purposes so indicated. They 
have not intentionally taken a single 
step backward. Nulla vestigia retror- 
sum. in dragging of the giant from 
his den, has been their maxim, in 
adopting the changes by them pro- 
posed. The great principle of the act 



2] 



of 1851, which they regard as a dis- 
covery in Legislation, as applied to 
this subject, that will rebound to the 
lasting honor of its author — that is the 
seizing by the strong hand of the law, 
and destroying by the order of the 
court, the great agent of the mischief — 
they have resigned sedulously to pre- 
serve. It may truly be said to be a 
discovery in Legislation, on this sub- 
ject. Legislation has been at war with 
intemperance in drinks for a very long 
period of time, and has been thus far 
constantly foiled and defeated. For 
the earliest enactments in England, 
upon this subject, we must go back to 
the days of black-letter law, so far 
certainly as the reign of Edward VI. 
At a parliament entitled, of the 5th and 
6th years of his reign, an act was 
passed of which the preamble is as 
follows: "Forasmuch as intolerable 
hurts and troubles to the common- 
wealth of this realm, daily do grow 
and increase through such abuses and 
disorders as are had and used in com- 
mon ale-houses and tippling houses, it 
is therefore enacted," etc. From that 
time to this the same complaint has 
been renewed almost every year, and 
the statutes of England and those of 
our Pilgrim fathers, of our colonial 
governments, and of our states, down 
to this day, are full of enactments up- 
on this subject, constantly defeated, 
evaded and rendered of no effect; 
showing, on the one side, a strong in- 
flexible Anglo-Saxon resolution to do 
something to restrain and check the 
evil, and, on the other, an equally un- 
yielding determination to render every- 
thing so attempted nugatory and use- 
less. The attempt in all this Legisla- 
tion heretofore, has been to restrain 
and keep within bounds the evil, and 
the result has been that all these have 
been successfully met and resisted; 
and the lesson of experience to be 
learned from these facts is, that the 
principle upon which such Legislation 
is based, is wrong. The idea of this 
legislation is to regulate and restrain. 
It has had its day, and failed to an- 
swer its end. The idea of the act to 
which we refer, is to destroy and re- 
move out of the way totally, the cause 
of the evil. It was first reduced to 
practical application by the United 
States in their enactments regulating 
the trade with the Indian tribes. By 
these enactments, the United States of- 
ficers are directed and commanded to 
seize all intoxicating liquors introduced 
for sale into the Indian territories, and 
without judge or jury, immediately to 
destroy them; and your committee are 
not aware that the right to enact and 
enforce such laws has ever been called 
in question by any body. This course 
was found perfectly effective in the 
accomplishment of its object. But the 
idea was too valuable to be confined 
to such limited application. Its intro- 



duction into the Legislation of states 
upon this subject, is an era from which 
will be dated a revolution in the his- 
tory of the human race. 

Without further preface, the com- 
mittee will proceed to indicate the ob- 
jects they have had in view, in pre- 
paring the bill herewith submitted. It 
is not at all a matter of surprise, that 
a first effort in legislation, upon so 
momentous a subject, affecting such a 
variety of interests, and upon a prin- 
ciple so novel in its use and applica- 
tion, should be found to be defective. 
On the contrary, your committee are 
ready to declare that with them the 
surprise is rather that there should be 
found so little that needs amendment. 
The object of the committee has been 
to maintain in the fullest degree, the 
integrity of the principle of the orig- 
inal law, that is, the destruction of the 
liquors, and the certainty of penalties, 
and to remove so far as is practicable, 
all couses of doubt and uncertainty in 
the appliation of these principles in 
the law in question. They do not pro- 
pose to add intensity to the enact- 
ments, being fully satisfied that if the 
enactments of the original law can be 
honestly and fully carried out, they 
a^e all that is or can be required on 
this subject. In accomplishing that ob- 
ject they have not found it necessary 
to make any change in the first ten 
sections of the original act, except a 
repeal of so much of the sixth section 
as requires the appellate court to in- 
flict a double penalty upon an appel- 
lant on final conviction. The five suc- 
ceeding sections they recom- 
mended should be repealed, 
and in the bill herewith 
submitted they have embodied every 
principal feature of these sections, 
with such additions and modifications 
as in their opinion will render their 
apploation certain, plain and direct, 
and remove all reasonable objections to 
their enforcement. They have also en- 
deavored to guard against any abuse 
or ill practices of agent appointed to 
sell under said act, and to provide a 
remedy for the very general and com- 
mon abuse of the sanctity of a dwell- 
ing house in making it a store-house 
and place of deposit of liquors intend- 
ed for illegal sale. Your committee do 
not believe, that to search the dwell- 
ings into which rum has retreated, re- 
lying upon the sacredness of the do- 
mestic hearth for its protection from 
the grasp of the law, will be, if made 
under due safeguards, any infringe- 
ment of the right of citizens to be 
protected in their houses from un- 
reasonable search. If rum, to avoid 
the strong arm of the law, creeps into 
a dwelling house, let it be seized and 
dragged out as a thief would be. In 
the bill herewith submitted it is pro- 
vided, that before a warrant shall be 
issued to search a dwelling house, evi- 
dence of witnesses must be given in 
writing, on oath, filed with the mag- 



■>2 



istrate, sufficient to show that there 
is good ground to believe that spirit- 
uous and intoxicating- liquors are kept 
or deposited therein, intended for un- 
lawful sale therein or elsewhere; and 
thereupon, on complaint made in due 
form of law. a warrant may be issued 
for such search. It is further provided, 
that if any of the witnesses shall be 
convicted of giving false testimony 
knowingly and willfully in such evi- 
dence, they shall be punished by im- 
prisonment in the State prison for the 
term of one year, Which the committee 
think will be a sufficient caution 
against the indulgence of an undue 
curiosity on the part of any one in 
looking into his neighbor's affairs. 

Tour committee believe that all such 
liquors found in this State must be 
considered in law to be in the keeping 
and possession of somebody in this 
State, in the character either of owner 
or keeper, and they have provided a 
process by which such owner or keep- 
er, if the liquors are not restored to 
him on his request, on his furnishing, 
to the magistrate who issued the war- 
rant, satisfactory evidence, that they 
were not intended for unlawful sale, 
for doing which they have provided, 
may in all cases be made a party to 
the proceeding and appear and defend 
his right, and have an opportunity of 
trial by jury if he wish it, and be 
made amenable to the penalties of the 
law if guilty of a violation thereof. 
They know no reason why farmers 
should not be permitted to manufac- 
ture the fruits of their conduct into 
cider, and sell the same, and they 
have inserted a provision to that ef- 
fect; but if it be found in "drinking 
houses and tippling shops," it must 
suffer the fate of the poor dog in the 
fable who fell into bad company. 

They have also in the act imposed 
a penalty on agents for selling to 
minors or to intemperate persons, and 
knowingly for purposes other than 
those allowed by law, and have pro- 
vided that the liquors kept by such 
agent shall be of good quality and 
not adulterated or factitious. There 
will also be found a provision that 
certain municipal and police officers 
may upon view take into custody liq- 
quors which they have reason to be- 
lieve are intended for illegal sale, and 
detain them till a warrant can be 
issued on complaint made. Among 
other changes of minor consequence 
they have provided that the complaint 
on which a warrant is to be issued, 
■may be made by any three persons 
resident in the county, who are com- 
petent to be witnesses in civil causes. 
They are not aware of any good rea- 
son for confining the privilege or 
duty to voters. Thousands of people 
who are not voters are deeip- 
ly interested in the execution 
of the law. They have provided also 
that all fines and penalties under this 
act shall go to the cities, towns and 



plantations in which the offenses were 
committed. 

Tiie object of this law is not to dic- 
tate to men "what tney snail eat and 
what they shall olrink, or wnerewithal 
they shaid be clothed." These are not 
matters for wnich in themselves legis- 
lation is fitted, although in practice 
in all ages legislation has been more 
or less devoted to such objects. They 
are in themselves better let alone lay 
law makers, who are justified in inter- 
fering with them only when from their 
abuses the public is a sufferer. If 
men will be so besotted as to be drunk 
at home, and will not thereby disturb 
the public peace, nor that of their own 
families or neighborhood nor expose the 
public to the liability to expense for 
the maintenance of themselves or 
their families, or for the expense of 
restraining or punishing the offenses 
they are liable and often induced to 
commit against the rights of their fel- 
low citizens or the laws of the land, 
under influence of the excitement of 
intoxication, the law given should not 
interfere. It is the province of the 
moralist, the philanthropist, the 
ipreacher, to take up and reform such 
cases. Here is scope and latitude 
enough for that moral suasion which 
is so frequently in the mouths of the 
opponents of this kind of legislation, 
to exercise itself in its proper prov- 
ince. Here are subjects suitable for 
its enterprise and worthy of its zeal- 
ous endeavors. But when the drunk- 
ard leaves his filthy den and staggers 
out into open daylight, a nuisance to 
all beholders, disturbing, disgusting 
and ready to quarrel with every peace- 
able and industrious man who comes 
in his way, and terrifying, distressing 
and insulting every decent woman 
whom he meets — it is time for 
the law to lay its restraining hand 
upon him, and it is time for it to reach 
a little further, and take into its iron 
grasip the manufacturer of such nui- 
sances, the man who with a taste 
little less shocking than that of the 
ghoo-ils of fiction who feed upon car- 
casses, draws his living out of such 
disgusting objects. 

The committee does not feel that it 
is necessary for it to argue the ques- 
tion of the right of the Legislature to 
make such enactments. That ques- 
tion, they think, has already been de- 
cided by an almost unanimous public 
voice, which is fully sustained by the 
most eminent jurists and judges of 
our land, including, it is believed, 
every Judge of our own Supreme 
Judicial Court, and every Judge of 
the Supreme Court of the United 
States; but they think they may be 
pardoned a few suggestions on this 
topic if for no other reason than to 
show that it has by no means been 
kept out of sight or intentionally 
avoided. They declare that, in their 
opinion, the first articles of the bill 
of rights in our Constitution is the 



basis upon which this legislation is 
rightfully built. Among the rights 
therein declared to b*= inalienable, 
which can never be parted with, are 
those of "enjoying and defending life 
and liberty, acquiring, possessing and 
protecting property, and of pursuing 
and obtaining safety and happiness," 
which one of these rights is not en- 
dangered by the furious drunkard? 
What enjoyment of life can be had in 
his presence? So far as the 
effects of poverty and crime, with 
their attendant expenses of support of 
paupers and of prisons, abridge the 
right of acquiring and possessing 
property, that right is invaded by the 
drunkard, and may reasonably ask 
protection at the hands of the Legis- 
lature. So far as the enjoyment of 
life and liberty is impaired by the fe- 
rocious and maniacal madness of in- 
toxication, they may also ask for pro- 
tection. So far as the pursuing and 
obtaining of safety and happiness is 
marred, by the sympathy that must 
be felt for the unfortunate families of 
the inebriates, the brutalization of the 
victims, and the destruction of the 
■peace and quiet of domestic life, in- 
cident to all these evils, they may also 
ask for protection. This evil attacks 
the Constitution and bill of rights in 
the very threshold of the temple of 
liberty, and there it should be met, 
resisted and overthrown, and not be 
suffered to enter the pure and sub- 
lime edifice and shelter its hidious de- 
formity in any dark corner or nook of 
the building, in which should dwell 
nothing but peace and happiness, un- 
disturbed by the filthy breathings of 
the demon of intoxication. 

They ask leave to present the ac- 
companying bill. 



LETTER X. 

PROHIBITION SUSTAINED IN 1854. 

AUGUSTA, Jan. 7, (Special Cor- 
respondence). — In 1854, Democrats and 
Whigs, who had become disaffected on 
account of the attitude of their parties 
toward the question of prohibition, 
united with the party known as the 
Maine Law Party, and Know-nothing, 
or American party. These men nom- 
inated Anson P. Morrill, one of the 
most prominent and able men in the 
State. The regular Democratic nomi- 
nee was Albion K. Parris. The Whigs 
nominated Isaac Reed and Democrats 
who were opposed to their regular 
party nominee but who would not 
support candidates of the other parties, 
selected Shepherd Cary as their stand- 
ard bearer, and he was known as the 
opposition Democrat. 

That year the total vote of the State 
was 90,633. nearly approaching the 
phenomenal vote of 1852. The result 
of the election was Morrill, Maine Law, 
44,565; Parris, Dem., 28,462; Reed, 



Whig, 14,001; Cary, opposition Dem., 
3,478; scattering, 127. 

In his inaugural address, Governor 
Morrill said: "The law for the sup- 
pression of drinking houses and tip- 
pling shops has been fully discussed 
by the people of this State, and be- 
comes a question of prominence and 
deep interest in our elections. The 
result proves conclusively that the 
people are by a very large majority in 
favor of sustaining that law — a happy 
verdict for the cause of humanity 
throughout the land. Had Maine de- 
clared against the law; her decision 
would have been felt most disastrously 
by other communities, where strong 
efforts are being made to obtain simi- 
lar legislation. That any law which 
human wisdom can devise, will at once 
rid the public of an evil so vast and 
deep-rooted as intemperance, should 
not be expected; but that the traffic 
which produces it, can be circum- 
scribed and controlled by penal enact- 
ments, as surely and as legitimately as 
other crimes, there can be no reason- 
able doubt. 

"And it is equally clear that the peo- 
ple are determined to pursue the ef- 
fort faithfully, and give the law a fair 
trial. They see and feel the terrible 
ravages the traffic in intoxicating 
drinks has made upon society and its 
best interests. They feel deeply the 
loss of many valued citizens, who are 
constantly being hurried to the in- 
ebriate's grave. They fully realize 
that the sale and use of alcoholic 
liquors as a beverage, are in direct 
conflict with the health, morals, -indus- 
try, peace and happiness of society, 
and that this fact is so apparent, that 
those individuals who insist on selling 
in violation of the law should be made 
to feel its consequences. 

"It is too late to plead that making- 
men inebriates, or giving the facilities 
to become such is no crime; none but 
the more depraved or reckless will 
support a doctrine so pernicious and 
absurd, and it is believed that few 
are now engaged in the traffic, in this 
State, except those persons who are 
alike indifferent to public sentiment, 
the demands of humanity, and their 
own best interests. Persuasive ef- 
forts having been exhausted on this 
class of men, the law should be en- 
forced in protection of society and in 
mercy of the offender. This impor- 
tant statute has not had a fair trial. 
Executive officers have been culpably 
negligent in seeing it enforced. Too 
often has the officer, whose duty it Was 
to honor and execute it as the law of 
the commonwealth, been found more 
willing to exculpate the offender than 
to bring him to justice. Such offi- 
cial derelictions of duty embolden vio- 
lators of the law to repeated offences, 
which they would not have committed, 
with the full assurance that the law 
was to be faithfully administered. This 
error must be corrected, the law must 
be faithfully enforced. The people de- 



■>4 



mand that grog shops be closed, 
whether found in spacious saloons and 
popular hotels, where the temptation 
is presented' in the most alluring form, 
or in the filthy cellar or den, where 
poor degraded humanity is made loath- 
some to the last degree. 

"No man sells ardent spirits in vio- 
lation of this law through the prompt- 
ings of patriotism or humanity; he 
has no higher motive than a reckless 
or sordid love of gain; he should be 
held strictly accountable for the mis- 
chief his traffic produces. Let this be 
done, and none will continue in the 
business, except as such as are madly 
bent on suicide. 

The Penalty. 

"I would suggest the importance o 
so amending the law as to impose im 
prisonment for the first offence. Th 
penalty for the first conviction is trif 
ling, and the schemes devised to avoh 
detection are so numerous that man 
sellers, undoubtedly, realize larg 
amounts from the business before a 
conviction is had. 

"Let the prison be opened for their 
reception and reformation, as it is for 
offenders of less magnitude, even th 
unhappy victims of their traffic, an 
be assured its prospective, chastening 
influen2es will be felt more restrain- 
ingly, than merely taking by fine from 
the pocket of the delinquents a trif 
ling part of the money the busines 
had given them. 

"The willingness of rum sellers ii 
other states to supply those in th 
same business and the facilities af 
forded by the steamboats and other 
common carriers to bring liquors into 
this State for unlawful purposes cal 
for such improvement in the law a 
shall meet this prolific source of evi 
and cut off a great artery which is 
pouring the poisonous liquid into this 
State. Other amendments may be de 
sirable to give efficiency to the law 
and meet modes of avasion which the 
ingenuity and cupidity of determined 
violators have invented." 

The Legislature, backed up by th 
sentiment of the people who had elect 
ed a Maine law candidate and a legis 
lature favorable to prohibition, great 
ly strengthened prohibitory senti 
ment. 

Hon. Nelson Dingley in an articl 
upon the conditions of that time, stat 
ed that in Maine in 1855 there were 
10,000 persons, one for every 45 of th 
population, accustomed to get beastly 
drunk; there were 200 deaths annually 
from delirium tremens, there were 300 
convicts in the State prisons and jail 
and intemperance was destroying a 
large proportion of the homes through 
out the State. 

The Legislature that year passed a 
law in which it was declared that th 



term "intoxicating liquor" means and 
includes every liquid preparation tha 
will produce intoxication. No liquors 
were to be sold except for medicinal 
and mechanical uses, and these only 
by agents appointed for the purpose, 
and there should be only one agent in 
any city or town. The agent was to be 
appointed by the mayor and aldermen 
of cities, and selectmen of towns. He 
could not sell to anv person unless 
known to be an inhabitant of the city 
or town; he couid not sell to any mi- 
nor, servant or apprentice, nor to any 
intemperate person, nor to an Indian. 
He should have no interest whatever 
in the liquors sold, nor in the profits of 
the agency. He must be a person of 
sober life, and not addicted to the 
use of liquors. No one who had been 
convicted of selling liquors should b< 
an agent, neither could an inn holder, 
tavern keeper, or trader be selected for 
the position. 

The penalty for first conviction of vio- 
lation of the act was a fine of $20 and 
costs, and imprisonment for 30 days. 
The second conviction brought a fine of 
$20 and costs, and prison for 60 days; 
third conviction, a fine of $20 and costs 
and imprisonment for 90 days; for the 
fourth and every subsequent conviction 
he should be deemed a "common seller," 
and subject to a fine of $200 and costs, 
and imprisonment for six months. No 
person was allowed to manufacture any 
intoxicating liquor. No apothecary or 
druggist should 'nave liquors except for 
the preparation of medicine, which must 
be ordered by a physician, who should 
be a person of sober life and not addicted 
to the use of intoxicating liquors. Art- 
ists or manufacturers could keep liquors 
only for use in the arts or manufactures; 
apothecaries, druggists, artists or man- 
ufacturers who violated this law were 
subject to fine of $100 and costs and 
three months imprisonment for t'ne first 
offence, and for the second and every 
subsequent conviction, a fine of $200 and 
six months' imprisonment. Stage driv- 
ers, expressmen. common carriers, 
teamsters, or other agents could not 
carry any liquors from place to place 
except for agencies, under a penalty of 
$20 and costs for first conviction; $20 and 
costs and 3 Odavs in prison for the sec- 
ond: $200 and costs and three months 
in prison for the third, and for later 
offences, $400 fine and six months in 
prison. 

One section of the law provided that 
if a person was found intoxicated in the 
streets or nighways, in his own house 
or in any other building, and should dis 
turb the pubMc peace, he could be ar- 
rested. If found guilty of intoxication 
he should be in prisoned in the common 
jail for 30 days. But the judge or jus- 
tice could remit any portion of the pun- 
ishment, and order the prisoner to be 
discharged, if he should make disclos- 
ures or furnisn evidence to authorize a 
warrant to be issued for an offence 
against the person of whom he procured 
or received the liquors, whereby he be- 
came intoxicated. 

The entire act comprised 34 sections, 
and was approved March 16. 1855. to take 
effect the first day of Mav of that year. 



LETTER XL 

REPEAL OF PROHIBITION. 

AUGUSTA. Jan. 8, (Special Cor- 
respondence). — During the years 1855 
and 1856, the question of slavery be- 
came of the first and foremost import- 
ance, throughout the North. And 
during these two years, the Maine Law 
party was practically disbanded. Those 
who had formed that party, with the 
Whigs and the Democrats who sym- 
pathised, organized under the name of 
Republicans. 

In the campaign of 1855 Governor 
Morrill became a candidate for Gover- 
nor, nominated by the new party. The 
vote was the biggest ever cast in Maine 
up to that time, the total vote being 
110,477. It was divided as follows: 
Morrill, Rep., 51,441; Samuel Wells, 
Dem., 48,341; Isaac Reed, Whig, 10,610; 
scattering, 81. Governor Morrill had 
not received a majority of the votes, 
and the Legislature elected Mr. Wells 
for Governor. 

"The regulation of the sale of intox- 
icating liquors will claim the early at- 
tention of the Legislature," said Gov- 
ernor Wells in his inaugural. "The 
laws upon that subject have undergone 
frequent changes, and with the light 
of experience, a new one may be 
framed, which will suit the wants of 
the community. The liability to abuse 
and excess in the consumption of such 
liquors, calls upon society to restrain 
the sale as far as is consistent with 
the liberty of the citizen. Intemper- 
ance is a great evil, the parent of many 
sorrows, vices and crimes, and every 
legitimate and proper means should be 
used to prevent it. But the true 
foundation of temperance must be laid 
in education. Fines and imprison- 
ment terrify and restrain to some ex- 
tent, but they rarely reform. Every 
man capable of managing his affairs 
has the right to determine for him- 
self what shall be eaten or drank in 
his own house, and any attempt by 
law to control him in the exercise of 
it, cannot be justified. But when one 
undertakes to act upon society, by sell- 
ing liquor, the law can properly pre- 
scribe rules for his government he 
then makes himself amenable to the 
will of others. Society, in the em- 
ployment of a proper discretion, may 
protect itself. The use of stimulants 
containing the intoxicating principle, 
has prevailed among all nations from 
the earliest times, and it is not proba- 
ble that it will ever be entirely aban- 
doned. 

"Whether a person will or will not 
use intoxicating liquors as a beverage, 
is a question for his own determina- 
tion. One may persuade another as to 
■what he will do in relation to himself 
in morals or religion, but coercion in 
respect to such action is persecution. 
It is founded in the sentiment, that 
one knows what is better for his 
neighbor, than his neighbor knows 



himself, and a unity of will must be 
made by compulsion. An attempt of 
this kind is at war with the very ele- 
ments of civil liberty. The wants of 
the community willl be satisfied with 
a very restricted sale, by granting li- 
censes in each city, town and planta- 
tion, to no more sellers than will con- 
veniently accommodate the purchas- 
ers. It is a desirable object toplace the 
traffic in the hands of respectable cit- 
izens. Innholders by furnishing li- 
quors to their guests and travelers 
alone, wiould stand in the same situa- 
tion as the heads of families. Import- 
ers under the laws of the United 
States should be allowed to sell in the 
original packages. And there are 
some classes of persons to whom sales 
could be prohibited, those whose hab- 
its show them unfit to be trusted with 
what they are sure to use improperly. 

"The public good requires that no 
intoxicating liquors should be allowed 
to be drank in the shops where they 
are sold. Such practices lead to 
breeches of the peace, and other con- 
duct injurious to society. It does not 
accord with wise and consistent laws 
to forbid the manufacture of an arti- 
cle which is permitted to be sold. No 
doubt the legislature will enact a law, 
with suitable penalties, that will re- 
ceive the approbation of the people, 
and will accomplish all that legisla- 
tion can be expected to do in promot- 
ing the cause of temperance. 

"Although many well meaning peo- 
ple have approved of the existing law 
on this subject, believing it to be the 
ibest instrumentality to advance a 
good cause, it seems to me that they 
have done so without a thorough 
examination and understanding of it, 
and that no rational and unpredjudic- 
ed man, who has studied it attentiveiy 
oan sanction its tyranical details, and 
recommend it as a rule of govern- 
ment, to a free people. 

.j as Repealed. 

The opposition to the Prohibitory 
Law had rallied their forces, and an 
effort to repeal the legislation of 1851 
and the subsequent years, was suc- 
cessfully made. A committee 'Of the 
judiciary through its chairman, P. 
Barnes, made a report relative to the 
sale of 'intoxicating liquors, reviewing 
the legislation since 1851. Among 
other things a majority of the com- 
mittee, who were hostile to the prin- 
ciples of prohibition, .said: 

"The present statute law of this 
State prohibits the sale of intoxicat- 
ing liquors for drink. The sale for 
medical and mechanical uses is per- 
mitted, but no question arises at this 
time in regard to these uses. The 
manufacture of these liquors is also 
prohibited, with a .slight exception. 

"It is argued that the Prohibitory 
Law encroaches upon the rights of the 
people who should be left to decide for 
themselves w lief her or not they should 



26 



drink intoxicating liquors. The fact 
is notorious," says the report, "that 
the unlimited -sale of alcoholic liquors 
leads to drunkenness, dissipation, vice 
and poverty. For hundreds of years, 
therefore, the State has imposed 
checks and limitations upon the traf- 
fic as a hazardous trade. The laws 
for this purpose stand upon the same 
footing- as the gunpowder laws, with 
the important difference that unlaw- 
ful keeping of powder exposes the 
lives of the most innocent without 
any power on their part to protect 
themselves. But the sale of liquors 
can do no harm, to a rational person, 
unless the buyer voluntarily commits 
a wrong, after the sale, by excessive 
drinking. 

"The State has the right to forbid 
the sale of liquors to soldiers in the 
public service; to jurors engaged in 
the trial of cases; and to others in 
like public employment because they 
are under statutory contract with the 
Govern merit, which, for the time be- 
ing, suspends a part of their individual 
freedom. It has the right also to for- 
foid the sale to minors, to Indians, to 
paupers, to drunkards, to prisoners in 
the jails, to patients in the hospitals 
and other like classes, because these 
persons are under conceded disabili- 
ties, and subject to the governing 
power in a wholly different relation 
from that of the free adult, well be- 
haved, self supporting citizen. 

"To the last named class the State 
has also the right to prescribe that 
they shall not drink at places estab- 
lished as common resorts for drink- 
ing, and to prescribe that such places 
may be suppressed, because experience 
shows that they tend to excess, and 
(increase the exposure of the classes 
requiring protection. 

"The State also has the right to 
require that the manufacture of al- 
coholic liquors shall be confined to 
a limited number of persons; that it 
in material parts The law of 1851 
lasted one year and 11 months. The 
law of 1853 remained in force for an 
equal period. The law of 1855 did not 
stand upon the statute book 60 days 
when the Supreme Court had occasion 
be carried on only at permitted places, 
and under such regulation and control 
that it shall not have a tendency to 
aid the unlawful sale." 

The committee reviews the prohibi- 
tory legislation in this way: 

"To inquire whether the recent and 
existing prohibitory laws in this State 
have been successful anight lead only 
to a conflict of interested judgments. 
Some things, however, are obvious to 
all. The Prohibitory Law consists of 
two parts — that which is declaratory, 
showing what may and what may not 
8>e done, and that which embraces the 
cmodes and penalties for enforcing it. 
The methods and apparatus of the 
law, are, of course, as what is called 
its principles because If machinery 



cannot be devised to work out the 
principle, steadily and successfully, 
the principle has no practical value. 
Within four years, from 1851 to 1855, 
we had three several statutes, of this 
kind, each one professing as to the 
part of principal importance, to be 
complete in itself, and each succeeding 
one repealing its successor. What is 
called the principle remained substan- 
tially the same in all of them, but 
the apparatus was regularly changed 
to point out a defect in its provisions, 
which its friends may perhaps claim 
was a mere oversight, but which very 
materially weakened its efficiency. 

"These rapid changes have usually 
been accounted for by the friends of 
the system on the ground of their in- 
tention to make the law more and 
more stringent." 

"That a large body of our citizens 
have been committed in favor of these 
measures is evident ;many have taken 
this position with honest and well- 
meant purposes; it is notorious also 
that a political partv, having the or- 
dinary stakes of partisanship at risk, 
has assumed the championship of 
these laws. We are plainly, therefore, 
in the midst of a struggle, which may 
be exceedingly unfavorable to the in- 
vestigation of true principles, and for 
a time most hazardous to the cause of 
temperance among us, but which must 
result, sooner or later, in the general 
acquiesance upon that which is sound 
and true. There are many men who 
prefer to reach a demonstration by 
experiment, rather than by reason. If 
the Prohibitory Laws have not yet 
shown to their partisan supporters 
that the system is impracticable as 
well as unwarrantable, the people of 
the State will have to endure further 
conflicts upon this issue. If, by pos- 
sibility, the persons who have adopted 
the Prohibitory Law as an article of 
the partisan creed of an ordinary po- 
litical party, could be induced to 
waive that dangerous pretension, and 
allow the question to stand as an open 
question before the people we might 
sooner and more easily reach a true 
solution of the case, resting upon ad- 
mitted principles, and satisfactory to 
all honest men. 

"But this may be too much to ex- 
pect, and the case may have to be 
worked out, in the face of this great 
disadvantage. It may, indeed, lead to 
an ultimate advantage and benefit, 
for, the sharper the conflict, the more 
clear may be the results of the trial. 
As in a thousand cases before, be- 
tween the principles of popular right 
and the principles of arbitrary power, 
the violence of the struggle may bring 
a deeper and firmer settlement upon 
the questions of natural right, of con- 
stitutional limitation, of the moral 
power of self-government, and the ex- 
tent of popular privilege in a free 
state. 



27 



In accordance with the views en- 
tertained by a majority of the com- 
mittee on the general subject re- 
ferred to them, they have agreed to 
report a bill, under the title of "An 
act to restrain and regulate the sale 
of intoxicating liquors and to prohib- 
it and suppress drinking houses and 
tippling shops," which is herewith 
submitted. 



LETTER XIL 

LICENSE INCREASED 
INTEMPERANCE. 

AUGUSTA, Jan. .9 (Special Corre- 
spondences—The friends of prohibi- 
tion, although acknowledging that 
they had met with disaster by the re- 
peal of the prohibitory legislation in 
1856, were not cast down, but renewed 
the fight with fresh determination. On 
January 29, 1857, in an address dated 
at Augusta, a committee composed of 
prominent men, sent out an appeal to 
the people of the State. The commit- 
tee included Anson P. Morrill, A. R. 
Abbott, N. G. Hichborn, D. C. Magoun, 
H. G. Russ, Joseph B. Hall, Thomas 
Chase, George Downs, Charles. Hill, 
Abner Coburn, Joseph Covell, D. B. 
Randall, W. B. Sargent. 

In this address allasion was made 
to the defeat of prohibition. The com- 
mittee stated that two years previous, 
no liquors were brought into the Stat 
for sale as a beverage, except by 
stealth. The statement was made 
that during the six months ending on 
January 21, 1856, the weekly steamer 
from New York to Portland had 
brought 10 pipes, 23 barrels, 11 cases of 
liquors, and 2 barrels of ale. Nearly all 
of this was for the city and town 
agencies. In contrast the statement 
was made that during the six months 
ending January 1, 1857, the quantity of 
liquors brought by the same means 
was 58' pipes, 1,040 barrels, 308 cases, 
and 373 barrels of ale. 

The committee called attention to 
the fact that under the license law in- 
temperance was again increasing. 
Continuing, the committee said : 

"We take courage in the belief that 
a majority of the people in this State 
are in favor of a Prohibitory Law— 
by which we mean, a law that prohib- 
its the entire traffic in alcohol liquors, 
except for medicinal and mechanical 
purposes. The repeal of the Maine 
law furnishes no evidence that this 
is not the case. The causes which re- 
sult in that repeal were accidental and 
transitory. We do not deny that 
there were imperfections in the stat- 
ute of 1855, which made a revision 
necessary. Its enemies seized upon 
these, and, with the aid of an ex- 
citement caused by local disturbances 
and by constant misrepresentations 



succeeded in alarming the public mind 

"Many timid men yielded to the 
pressure. It was also a year of new 
combinations in politics and the peo- 
ple were charged with false pretenses 
of politicians, who pledged themselves 
to do no more than amend the law, to 
substitute for it a 'suitable Prohibi- 
tory Law.' That a Legislature chosen 
at such a time, and controlled by such 
men, should trample the law under 
foot, and in spite of promisese and 
pledges, license the free sale of rum, 
is not surprising. But their acts are 
no evidence of the popular will. The 
license system which they established 
will soon be known as a monument 
to their brief authority and speedy 
condemnation. That five only of 96 
members who voted for it have been 
re-elected is abundant evidence of the 
estimation in which they were held 
by the people. And the fact that a 
large majority in our present Legisla- 
ture is in favor of a Prohibitory Law 
we regard as an indioatioji, art least, 
of thte popular 'majority on this ques- 
tion. 

"We know, indeed, that the mem- 
bers of the present Legislature were 
not elected on this issue. Another 
important question absorbed the pub- 
lic interest. All good reforms move 
in harmony — 'but they do not all move 
with the same impulse. We do not 
complain that the past year has been 
given to freedom. And we hope the 
ires u Its of the present license law 
have already convinced such as have 
heretofore doubted the necessity of 
prohibition. 

"But no other cause needs, or has 
the promise of the coming year. No 
great National question will demand 
our exclusive attention. And we ap- 
peal to the people of this State as 
they look out upon the hundreds or 
thousands of fountains that are 
day and night pouring their poisonous 
streams in our midst, unchecked, and 
many of them established by law, if 
the time has not come when the 
cause of temperance demands our aid, 
and is paramount to all others in its 
importance! 

"If entire abstinence is the only safe 
rule of life, entire prohibition is the 
only proper rule of law. They can- 
not be separated. If the use of al- 
coholic liquors as a beverage is wrong, 
injurious or destructive to the best 
interests of society, the necessity of a 
Prohibitory Law is self evident. The 
mere regulation of the traffic, if it 
were not Impossible, would be absurd. 
Regulation Imoossible. 

"But the attempt to regulate, instead 
of prohibiting, the sale of liquors is at- 
tempting an impossibility. If they 
are allowed to be sold at all for use 
as a beverage, the sale will of neces- 
sity be practically unrestricted. If 
they may ever be thus sold every 
man must judge for himself of the 
time, the occasion and the quantity. 



28 



The traffic is like fire that cannot 
toe controlled after it is once kindled. 
It is like a flood which has hurst 
its hounds, when there is no longer 
any ground on which 'barriers can 
he erected. 

"And, besides, if restriction outside 
of the limits of entire prohibition were 
possible, it would be productive of no 
good. It would be a limitation, not 
of the traffic, but only of the number 
of the traffickers. The sale would 
not thus be diminished. When a 
trade is illicit and secret, the amount 
may depend very much on the num- 
ber engaged in it. But if the traffic 
is open and allowed toy law, it mat- 
ters not whether those engaged in it 
toe many or few. Ten, as well as 20, 
can fill a town with drunkenness. 
Undoubtedly the 10 would like to do 
the whole of the business, and they 
will therefore favor the license sys- 
tem. But if such a system could be 
enforced, and the number limited to 
10, nothing is gained by it. Why 
should temperance men wish to en- 
force it? It would not benefit the 
community. The traffic is nonethe- 
less vile for being licensed. ' Let those 
who have licensed it themselves de- 
fend the monopoly they have created! 
Under the statute of 1856 there may 
toe more than 2,000 rumsellers licensed 
in this State! "Who does not know 
that, whether more or less, they can 
supply — aye, that regardless of con- 
sequences, they are anxious to sup- 
ply — every man in Maine with all the 
liquors he will purchase. If the 
number foe increased a thousand by 
unlicensed dealers — as it unquestion- 
ably is— this will not increase the 
quantity sold. It is only a question 
and not how much, or for what pur- 
pose it may be sold. The slave of ap- 
petite can be plundered of his last dol- 
lar at a licensed as well at at an un- 
licensed dram shop, and the poor wife 
and mother, whose famishing children 
are crying for food, cares not which. 
The coroner's jury wtoo inquire con- 
cerning the dead body found by the 
wayside, report not whether the mur- 
derer was licensed by the mayor and 
aldermen to do his work of death. 
It matters not except as it may in- 
volve those who license in equal guilt. 
And as the doors of the poor house 
and the prison open to receive their 
victims, it is idle to ask whether those 
who (have brought them to that con- 
dition foe many or few, licensed or 
unlicensed. If this trade, so full of 
evil, is to be allowed by law, we care 
not whether it may be monopolized 
toy a few, or be open to all who are 
willing to share in its guilt, and in- 
famy and shame. 

"Speaking then in behalf of the 
temperance men of Maine, whom we 
represent — who, as we believe, consti- 
tute a majority of the people — we de- 
mand the re-enactment of a prohibi- 
tory law. We do not desire that it 



should correspond in all of its provi- 
sions, with either of the statues we 
have ever had; tout we do claim that it 
shall prohibit the manufacture and sale 
of intoxicating liquors, except for med- 
icinal and mechanical purposes. 

'A uniform principle of criminal law 
— one which the meliorations of the 
code have in no wise changed — is that 
punishment by imprisonment is more 
effective than by fine. The great lead- 
er in that heroic struggle for English 
liberty in the time of Charles the First, 
saw clearly its practical importance. 
'It is true without all question,' says 
Pym, 'that exemplary punishments con- 
duce more to the safety of the State 
than pecuniary reparations, for who 
would not venture to raise a fortune if 
the worst that can fall be but restitu- 
tion merely?' So long as the penalty 
for selling alcoholic liquors be but a 
fine, large profits will cover the whole 
risk of detection. All liquor laws, 
whether for license or prohibition, not 
excepting even the present license law 
of this State, have recognized the force 
of this principle. The application of 
it, however, with all the details of 
the law we are content to leave with 
those whose duty it may be to frame 
it. 

"And yet, we will add the suggestion 
that we desire no heav?-r penalties up- 
on this subject than for other offenses. 
Experience has undoubtedly shown 
that penalties may be such as to pre- 
vent a conviction. We ask for no 
impracticable legislation — nothing that 
shall outrun the public judgment. We 
know that it is the certainty as well as 
the severity of the punishment, which 
restrains from the commission of 
crime, and the latter should not be 
sought when it can be obtained only 
at the expense of the former. 

Paramount Question. 

"We have thus reviewed the ground 
on which we stand — the hopes which 
we cherish. We have no interest in 
this matter, except in common with all. 
We seek no selfish purpose, no private 
advantage. But our feelings are as 
strong as they are disinterested. The 
question of a prohibitory law is, with 
us, paramount to all other questions 
now in direct issue, and is superior to 
all party attachments. We believe 
that such a law will bring comfort and 
joy to many households, restore peace 
and quiet to many communities, dimin- 
ish poverty and crime in our State, and 
greatly promote private and public 
prosperity. From 1846 to 1856 we had 
such a law — though not alike efficient 
for the whole time — and during no 
other 10 years of our history have we 
advanced so rapidly in all the elements 
of wealth and power. Other causes, 
doubtless, contributed something to 
this result, but to the progress of the 
temperance reform, which saves so 
much of time and labor and property, 
which incites and encourages and 



29 



strengthens all that is good in society, 
physical, intellectual, moral — we owe 
more than to all other causes combined, 
and we call upon the people of this 
State — of whatever party, as they cher- 
ish our free institutions, and hope to 
transmit them unimpaired to their 
children, as they love their children, 
and desire to see them worthy, to re- 
ceive and capable of preserving this 
inheritance, to unite with us in erect- 
ing the barrier of a prohibitory law 
against that tide of evil, which, un- 
checked, is sure to involve communi- 
ties, as well as individuals, in profligacy 
and ruin. 

"It is for you to say, how long be- 
fore the darkness that now covers us, 
shall foe followed by the light of a 
new morn — the dawning of a happier, 
a better day. 

"We are told in Grecian story that 
when Orpheus touched his lyre, a 
sacred gift from Apollo, wild beasts 
were tanned, Tentalus forgot his thirst, 
the wheel of Ixion stood still, and the 
Furies relented in their work of tor- 
ment. Such a gift from Heaven to 
any people who will accept it, is a 
prohibitory law. It alleviates suf- 
fering and tortures, more cruel than 
those of Tantalus and Ixion, and sub- 
dues enemies that are more dangerous 
than any beast that ever roamed in 
ancient forest. There are thousands 
of wretched families in our State 
that are waiting, longing, praying 
once more to hear its blessed music. 
Voters of Maine! when shall it be?" 

In 1856 the State Central Temper- 
ance Committee of Maine made an 
investigation to collect reliable in- 
formation as to the actual operation 
of the Maine law upon the cause of 
temperance, and also upon the con- 
dition of the traffic in intoxicating 
drinks under the Maine law, and, 
during the periods preceding its en- 
actment and subsequent to its repeal. 
This report was published under date 
of Portland, Dec. 1, 1856, and the in- 
formation collected from many towns 
and cities in every section of the 
State, was to the effect that under 
the Maine Law there was no manu- 
facture and open sale of intoxicating 
liquors, and that the consumption of 
liquors was very largely reduced. 
After the enactment of the license 
law, the traffic in liquors at once in- 
creased, and there was a noticeable 
increase in intemperance. 

It should be kept in mind that there 
was a tacit understanding that the 
Legislature elected in 1856 was not to 
change the license law, but that that 
legislation was to be given a trial of 
one year. It was well understood, 
however, that the Prohibitory Law 
would be re-enacted in 1858, and so 
firmly was this fixed in the minds of 
the people that, although the statutes 
were revised in 1857, the license law 
of 1856 was not incorporated in it. 



LETTER XIIL 

DEMAND FOR RETURN TO 
PROHIBITION. 

AUGUSTA, Jan. 11. (Special Cor 
respondence.)— The Legislature of 1856 
passed a bill, approved April 7, 1856, 
and this act repealed the law of 
March 16, 1855, and all sections which 
had hitherto been unrepealed of the Act 
of Aug. 7, 1846. The new bill was en- 
titled, "An Act to Restrain and Regu 
late the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors 
and to Prohibit and Suppress Drink- 
ing Houses* and Tippling Shops." 

It allowed, the manufacture of in- 
toxicating liquors. The provisions of 
the bill did not extend to wine or 
spirituous liquors, imported into the 
United States, when sold by the im- 
porters in quantities not less than 
were prescribed by the revenue laws 
for importation, and delivered and 
carried away at one time. Nor to the 
manufacture and sale of cider or wine 
made from fruit grown within the 
State. 

The aldermen and city clerk of cit- 
ies, the selectmen, treasurer and clerk 
of towns, and the assessors, treasurer 
and clerk in plantations, could author 
ize persons to sell intoxicating liquors 
In every city, town and plantation, at 
least one person and not more than 
two, could be thus licensed. In cities 
and towns of more than 3,000 and less 
than 8,000 inhabitants, authority could 
be given to three additional persons to 
sell; and in places having more than 
8,000 inhabitants two persons could be 
added for every addition of 3,000 in- 
habitants. Apothecaries could be auth 
orized to sell for medical purposes 
only, upon written prescription of a 
physician. 

No person authorized to sell liquors 
could allow them to be drank in the 
place where sold, or in any place un- 
der his ' control. Inn«-holders were 
authorized to sell only to travelers and 
strangers who were guests and lodg- 
ers, but no innholder was ■ allowed to 
keep a bar for selling liquors. The li- 
censed persons were forbidden to sell 
to minors, Indians, and so forth, as 
was usual. 

It was the duty of the persons grant- 
ing the license when informed by the 
relatives of any person that he was of 
intemperate habits, and they were 
satisfied of the fact, to give notice to 
all persons authoribed to sell intoxi- 
cating liquors, not to sell to him. Any 
person who sold liquor contrary to 
law, not being duly licensed, was pun- 
ished by a fine not exceeding $20. Upon 
conviction of being a common seller 
the guilty party was punished by a 
fine not exceeding $100, or imprison- 
ment not exceeding six months. If a 
licensed person sold intoxicating 
liquors to a drunkard, or to any one 
while intoxicated, knowing them to be 



30 



such, or sold to anyone to whom he 
had been forbidden to sell, he was lia- 
ble for all the injuries which the 
drunkard, intoxicated person or per- 
sons to whom liquors were forbidden 
committed while in a state of intoxica- 
tion arising from the drinking of the 
liquors. 

If a person who was not licensed 
sold liquors to any person he was lia- 
ble for all the injuries such person 
might commit while in a state of in- 
toxication arising from drinking of the 
liquors. 

Law Unsatisfactory. 

This law was unsatisfactory to many 
people in the State, and there at once 
began an agitation for a re-enactment 
of the prohibitory laws. In the elec- 
tion of 1856, owing to the interest in 
the prohibitory question and other 
important isssues, the total vote of the 
State was again increased, to the larg- 
est on record. Hannibal Hamlin came 
into prominence as the Republican 
candidate; Gov. Wells was renominat- 
ed by the Democrats, and George F. 
Patuen was the nominee of the Whigs. 

In a total vote of 119,814 Hamlin 
had 69,574, Wells 43,628 and Patten, 
6,554, scattering, 58. 

In his message to the Legislature, 
in 1857, Governor Hamlin referred to 
the liquor question, as follows: "The 
evils of intemperance are seen and 
acknowledged by all, even by its un- 
fortunate victims. The crime, pauper- 
ism and consequent misery produced 
by it, present a melancholy spectacle. 
Its prevention is earnestly desired by 
all right thinking men, but, unfortu- 
nately, upon the best method of sur- 
passing or preventing it there is a 
difference of opinion in our commun- 
ity. Laws for the suppression of 
drinking houses and tippling shops 
have been passed, designed to prohibit 
the sale of intoxicating drinks, except 
for mechanical and medicinal pur- 
poses. These laws have been re- 
pealed, and another enacted instead, 
licensing and permitting the sale of 
intoxicating liquors for all purposes, 
under the limitations and penalties 
therein contained. This law 5'as passed 
under the alleged belief that it would 
be better to promote and secure the 
cause of temperance, thar one of a 
prohibitory character. This is the 
state of the question as now present- 
ed. What should be done? What is 
wisest and best? 

"The public minu has . been deeply 
agitated upon the matter, and it would 
seem to be most wise, under existing 
ci -cumstances, not to disturb the pres- 
ent law until the whole subject can be 
more dispassionately discussed and 
determined. Such, undoubtedly, is the 
desire and -^pectation of the people of 
the State; such the implied, if not the 
actual pledge given in our recent elec- 
tion. Political bodies, like individuals, 



shouli. always maintain good . faith — 
and good faith requires that the ques- 
tion should not be disturbed during 
the present session. It is far better to 
wait patiently until all the angry feel- 
ing shall have subsided, and when the 
whole subject can be more appropri- 
ately acted on. Then let a well ma- 
tured and carefully prepared bill be 
submitted directly to the people, for 
their approval or rejection, at meet- 
ings held expressly for that purpose. 
The question would then be wrested 
from the vorte of party politics, con- 
nected with which any such measure 
must always, inevitably, be exposed to 
a constantly recurring opposition, and 
fail to secure that general acquies- 
ence which alone can give it perma- 
nence. Under a Government like ours, 
no law can stand the test of time 
which does not meet the support cf a 
deliberate and enlightened public 
judgment. No judicious friend of eith- 
er a license or prohibitory system, can 
desire to see either to become a law 
again to be repealed. That law, and 
that only, which shall receive the ap- 
probation of the community, by and 
for which it is enacted, can be per- 
manent and useful." 

At this time those who favored pro- 
hibition were extremely active and 
asserted that under prohibtion condi- 
tions had been much more conducive 
to good morals than was the case un- 
der the new laws of the year before. 
Prominent men, both within and with- 
out the State, gave evidence favorable 
to prohibition. Horace Greeley, who 
visited Maine in 1855, while the most 
extreme prohibitory legislation ever 
enacted was in force, wrote in the 
New York Tribune, his own paper, the 
following testimony: 

"The pretense that as much liquor 
is "old now in Maine as in former 
years, is impudently false. We spent 
three days in traveling through the 
State without ceeing a glass of liquor 
or an individual who appeared to be 
under its influence, and we were re- 
liably assured that, at the Augusta 
House, where the Governor and most 
of + he Legislature board, no liquor is 
to be had." 



LETTER XIV. 

THE FAILURE OF LICENSE. 

AUGUSTA, Jan. 12.— (Special Cor- 
respondence.) — It was found that the 
law of 1856, did not bring about the 
result which its advocates claimed, 
which was that it would tend to the 
promotion of temperance. Many men 
in all sections of the State declared 
that the restrictive sections of the 
act for which much was claimed, were 
farcical in effect At the hotels, where 
it was understood sales were to be 
•made only to guests, there was soon 
promiscuous drinking, and the sale 



of liquor at these places, or the most 
of them, was practically unrestricted. 

It was asserted that intemperance 
was on the increase, and that unless 
something- was done to stem this 
growing - tide of immorality the State 
would revert into the undesirable con- 
ditions of the thirties. 

In the ^mean time, the prohibitory 
question, like all great moral issues, 
became involved in politics. The ^ma- 
jority of the Democratic leaders were 
favorable to the license laws, and in 
every sense were hostile to prohibitory 
'legislation. The Republican party 
from its inception advocated temper- 
ance and prohibition. And so, in the 
election of 1856, there was a square 
issue between the Republican and 
Democratic parties, upon the question 
oif license or no license, as there was 
upon other .matters. 

Gov. Morrill's Message. 
Lot M. Morrill, one of the strongest 
men of his time, afterwards United 
States senator, was the Republican 
candidate for Governor. The Dem- 
ocratic candidate was Manassah H. 
Smith. Mr. Morrill was elected, hav- 
ing 54,655 votes, to 42,968 for his op- 
ponent. Governor Morrill in his mes- 
sage spoke at length upon prohibi- 
tion, one of the questions uppermost 
in the minds of the people, as follows: 
"The people of the State view with 
deep solicitude the subject of the traf- 
fic in intoxicating drinks. The prev- 
elence of intemperance consequent up- 
on the nearly unrestricted traffic, is 
just cause for public alarm. The sen- 
timent is nearly universal as to the 
common danger from this source, and 
the demand for some adequate remedy 
is equally universal. The sentiment 
as to the best method of relief is not 
equally concordant, and ifroim. this 
want of harmony there is reason to 
apprehend that the cause of temper- 
ance, which all right minded citizens 
desire to promote, may suffer harm. 

"It is contended that in this great 
reform, reliance must be placed in 
efforts strictly moral, and that all leg- 
islative penalties are unwise and in- 
jurious — that men cannot be reformed 
of their habits by penal enactment. 
There may be more or less truth in 
this position; its fallacy, however, con- 
sists in assigning to the Legislature a 
province essentially foreign to it. The 
Legislature assumes to deal with the 
traffic, as it is supposed to affect in- 
juriously the well being of the State, 
and does not address itself to the 
moral sense of the individual as to 
what is right or wrong in moral con- 
duct merely. The legislator takes cog- 
nizance of the prevalence of the traffic, 
which afflicts the State with crime, 
pauperism and disorder, and accord- 
ing to his observation is injurious to 
the public morals, health and general 
prosperity, and for these reasons we 
seek to suppress it. 



"Upon this, as upon other subjects, 
there may be intemperate legislation, 
which will react against the salutary 
object sought to be promoted; but upon 
this, as upon all other important sub- 
jects, there may be found, it is to be 
hoped, a common principle or basis 
upon which intelligent and well dis- 
posed men may unite for the promo- 
tion of a common object. 

"With the lights of experience, and 
a sense of the magnitude of the evil, 
and with a general feeling among the 
people that this whole subject is pre- 
eminently a moral question, the times 
it is believed, are favorable to calm 
deliberation and united effort with the 
common purpose of enacting the most 
efficient and expedient law possible— 
the most efficient because the most 
expedient. 

"That the evil falls within the pow- 
ers of legislation, and that the exercise 
of its powers is expedient, is sustained 
by the legislation of this Country from 
its earliest setlement. The right of 
this exercise of the legislative power 
over the subject conceded, it only re- 
mains, as a practical question, to de- 
termine the extent of the power, and 
how far it is expedient to exercise it. 
All would agree that it is expedient 
to exercise so much conceded or ascer- 
tained, power as may be required to 
accomplish the object. 

"Happily, the extent of the conserva- 
tive power of the State, on this and 
kindred subjects, has been clearly de- 
fined and settled by the judiciary of 
this Country, both Federal and state. 

"The present chief justice of the Su- 
preme Court of the United States, in 
pronouncing the opinion of the court 
in a case involving this right of the 
States, says: 'Every state may regu- 
late its internal traffic according to its 
own judgment, and upon its views of 
the interest and well being of its citi- 
zens. If any state deems the retail and 
traffic in ardent spirits injurious to its 
citizens, and calculated to produce 
idleness, vice and debauchery, I see 
nothing in the Constitution of the 
United States to prevent it from regu- 
lating and restraining the traffic, and 
prohibiting it altogether, if it thinks 
proper. The acknowledged police 
power of the state extends often to the 
destruction of property; everything 
prejudicial to the health and morals of 
the community may be removed. If 
the foreign article be injurious to the 
health and morals of the Country, a 
state may, in the exercise of that great 
and conservative police power, which 
lies at the foundation of its prosperity, 
prohibit the sale of it.' 

Court Decisions. 

"The decisions of our own State 
court are equally comprehensive and 
explicit. The late chief justice em- 
ployed this language: 'The state, by its 
legislative enactments, acting prospec- 



::l> 



tively, may determine that articles in- 
jurious to public health and morals, 
shall not constitute property within its 
jurisdiction. It may come to the con- 
clusion that spirituous liquors, when 
used as a beverage, are productive 
of a great variety of ills and evils to 
the people, both in their individual and 
in their associate relations; and the 
least use of them for such a purpose is 
injurious, and suited to produce, by a 
greater use, serious injury to the com- 
fort, morals and health; that the com- 
imon use of them for such a purpose 
operates to diminish the "productive- 
ness of labor, to injure the health, to 
impose upon the people additional and 
unnecessary burdens, to produce waste 
of time and of property, to introduce 
disorder and disobedience of the law, 
to disturb the peace, and to multiply 
crimes of every grade. Such conclu- 
sion would be justified by the experi- 
ence and history of man. If a legisla- 
ture should declare that no person 
should 'acquire any property in them, 
for such a purpose, there would be no 
occasion for complaint that it had vio- 
lated any provision of the constitution.' 

"The same doctrine prevails in Mass- 
achusetts: "The legislature may de- 
clare the possession of certain articles 
of property, either absolutely, or in 
particular places and under particular 
circuon stances to be unlawful, 
because they would be injuri- 
ous, dangerous or obnoxious^ and may 
provide for the seizure or confiscation, 
or destruction thereof, by due process 
of law." 

"The State, then, it will be perceived, 
has plenty power over the traffic in 
intoxicating liquors, and 'may regu- 
late, restrain, or prohibit it altogether,' 
'may declare that the least use of in- 
toxicating drinks, as a beverage, is in- 
jurious,' that 'such conclusions would 
be justified by the experience and his- 
tory of man/ and that 'It may provide 
for their confiscation and destruction.' 

"Thus, with great perspicuity, has 
the judicial mind of the Country, Fed- 
eral and State, determined the prov- 
ince and prerogatives of the Legisla- 
ture, in relation to this important sub- 
ject; and our own State court has, in 
the language above quoted, with equal 
clearness indicated a formula, within 
scope of which it may be expedient to 
exercise the power 'to prohibit the 
traffic in ardent spirits as a beverage,' 
and to 'provide for the confiscation 
and the destruction thereof, by due 
process of law.' 

"The expediency of this exercise of 
power, is in my judgment, equally 
clear upon principle. If it be assumed 
that the traffic in intoxicating drinks 
as a beverage be injurious!, then it nec- 
essarily follows that such traffic can- 
not with propriety be permitted, can- 



not be licensed or tolerated — but the 
enacting power must forbid it alto- 
gether. And this rule is as impera- 
tive in legislation as in morals — prohi-. 
bition is the only intelligent action in 
the case of a conceded wrong. 

"The annals of legislation upon this 
subject in this Country may also be 
appealed to, in proof of the correctness 
of this position, as a practical ques- 
tion. The license system has proved 
wholly inadequate everywhere. Under 
it, the sale and consumption of intoxi- 
cating liquors, has greatly increased. 
Our type of intemperance, both as to 
quantity and quality of liquors used, is 
-severer than is known elsewhere. Ex- 
perience proves how futile are all at- 
tempts to subject to authority and 
wisely control, a practice which claims 
to act by permission. The utmost vigi- 
lance over licensed houses has always 
been in vain— all efforts to prevent 
abuse of authority without success. 

"Under the present law, the traffic in 
intoxicating drinks for a beverage, is 
becoming quite common in all the cit- 
ies and towns. It is fraught with ills 
innumerable to the State— with beg- 
gary and crime. It may well be con- 
sidered whether, for such use, should 
not be considered contraband. 

"While experience and history clear- 
ly indicate the duty of the State to 
prohibit the traffic for a beverage, it is 
not equally clear that those liquors 
have not an important use in medicine 
and the arts— if indeed the converse be 
not true, and therefore it would seem 
their sale for such purposes should be 
provided for, to such an extent, and 
under such restrictions and regula- 
tions, as the public interest and safe- 
ty require. I commend the whole 
subject to your special attention. 

"In a popular form of government, 
where the efficiency of the law depends 
upon the unanimity of the people in 
their support, particularly in that class 
of enactments which intimately affect 
the social habits of a community, it is 
highly important that they should 
have the popular sanction. With 
the hope, also, that some common 
ground may be found upon which all 
well wishers to the public sobriety can 
unite, and thus place the question, by 
a decided action of the people, in their 
primary assemblies, above partisan 
aims^ I commend to your considera- 
tion whether it be not wise to submit 
to them for approval, in such manner 
as shall most likely elicit a general ex- 
pression, any law you may enact upon 
this subject." 



LETTER XV* 

LEGISLATIVE REPORT FAVORS 
PROHIBITION. 

AUGUSTA. Jan. 13.— (Special corres- 
pondences—The Republican platform 
in 1858 had pledged itself to place the 



license matter before the people. And 
when the matter was referred by the 
Legislature to a committee, that body 
.reported as follows: 

The Joint Select Committee, to 
whom was referred so much of 
the Governor's message as re- 
lates to the traffic of in- 
toxicating liquors and to whom also 
was referred the petition of Maria 
Cornelia D. Dow and 1,937 other wom- 
en of Maine, and numerous other peti- 
tions relating to the same subject, 
have had that subject under consid- 
eration, and ask leave to report that 
they have, as far as they were able, 
devoted their attention to the matters 
with the consideration of which they 
were charged, .with that degree of care 
and deliberation which the importance 
of the subject and the public expec- 
tation seemed to demand. The con- 
clusion of your committee is that the 
well-being of society requires the en- 
actment of 'a law for the restraint and 
regulation of the sale of intoxicating 
liquors, more efficient than that now 
in force. 

"Recognizing and fully appreciating 
•many excellent provisions in the law, 
yet your committee are of the opinion 
that it is wanting in the most efficient 
elements of a law required by present 
exigencies. 

"Your committee are also of the 
opinion that the general and distinc- 
tive principles of the statute of 1853 
are the only true and profitable basis 
of all enactments intended for the 
suppression of intemperance by a re- 
straint of the promiscuous traffic in 
ardent spirits. 

"It has. therefore, been the purpose 
of your committee to construct a bill 
upon that basis in such a manner as 
to provide an efficient law, which 
shall not be obnoxious or open to any 
just cause of complaint. 

"Your committee have no hope to 
reconcile the widely different opin- 
ions that prevail, upon the cardinal 
question of legal restraint upon that 
traffic. We are also aware of the 
diversity of opinions among those 
who are in favor of some measure of 
restraint; but your committee have 
proceeded upon the conviction that 
the better argument is in favor of 
the more summary methods of the 
suppression of the unlawful traffic. "We 
have accordingly endeavored so to 
construct and adjust the provisions of 
a bill, that, while it shall give due 
force to all proceedings instituted for 
that purpose, the rights of individu- 
als shall be properly guarded, and no 
cne shall be made to feel its severity 
but he who may be disturbed in his 
desire to violate the law with im- 
punity. 

"Your committee do not deem it in- 
cumbent on them to argue the pro- 
priety of the bill which they have 
made. It contains no important pro- 
visions which have not been discussed 



most thoroughly, not only by the 
press, the pulpit and by numerous 
legislative bodies, but by the people at 
large; and the greater part of the 
people are believed already to enter- 
tain fixed opinions on the one side or 
the other. 

"Neither does the bill contain any 
distinctive provisions justly charge- 
able with novelty of principle. The 
doctrine of search in case of suspi- 
cion of crime, is known wherever the 
common law is known, and was so 
well recognized as a proper and 
necessary practice, that those who 
framed the fundamental law, thought 
it worthy of them to guard and di- 
rect it by constitutional provisions. 

"The doctrine of seizure and. forfei- 
ture of contraband goods has also the 
sanction of antiquity, as well as the 
further authority of numerous Na- 
tional and state enactments. These 
have always been measures fit to be 
applied in all cases where the public 
exigencies required it. 

"Hence it would seem that the only 
question would be as to the propriety 
of the application of those methods 
to cases of unlawful traffic in ardent 
spirits. Upon that question every 
member of the Legislature probably 
has his own views; and it is to be 
hoped that every one will act freely 
and according to the dictates of his 
own judgment. 

"It may, however, be remarked that 
nearly all agree that there should be 
some degree of prohibition. If there 
must be prohibition, there must be a 
penalty for a violation of it, and 
whether that penalty be imprisonment 
or a forfeiture of money or of goods, 
it falls only upon those who might 
easily avoid it by obedience to the 
law. Your committee, therefore, re- 
port the bill herein submitted and en- 
titled 'An act to restrain and regulate 
the sale of intoxicating liquors,' and 
recommend the passage thereof. 

"Your committee further report 
that there is, in their opinion, a gen- 
eral desire among the people that such 
an act as may be passed on this sub- 
ject should be submitted to the peo- 
ple for their suffrages; and consid- 
ering the importance of the subject 
and the necessity of popular favor, 
in order that such law may be ef- 
ficient, your committee think it ad- 
visable so to submit it, and ask leave 
to sit again and to report a bill for 
that purpose." 

Discussion in Papers. 

Discussions at once crowded into the 
State papers on the license subject, 
and 'one writer no doubt expressed the 
views of a majority when he said: 
"The people will insist upon having a 
'law that will at once and effectually 
suppress the numerous grog-holes and 
tippling shops that are now a stench 
in the nostrils of the public." 



34 



At the beginning of the session of 
the Legislature, a correspondent writ- 
hing to the Portland Advertiser, said: 
"There is quite a temperance furore 
reigning in Augusta, at the present 
time, the alarming increase of rum 
'drinking in the community having 
aroused a state of feeling never before 
witnessed here." 

A call was issued for a temperance 
meeting, and the correspondents noted 
as a fact of peculiar importance, that 
among those who signed the call for 
this meeting were "Several gentlemen 
who are active Democratic politicians, 
and among the signers was observed 
the name of Col. G. W. Stanley, who, 
it will be remembered, was one oif the 
prime organizers of the anti-Maine 
Law Chandler movement, against Gov- 
ernor Hubbard, in 1852. The appear- 
ance of his name on the call cam only 
be regarded as a significant and re- 
markable confession of the utter in- 
efficiency and failure of the present 
■license law, which at the time of its 
enactment, was claimed by its friends 
as eminently adapted to promote the 
cause of temperance.'' 

The friends of prohibition declared 
that with the aid of many who for- 
merly stood aloof from temperance re- 
form, and with the unabated energy 
and ardor of the old pioneers in the 
cause, no one could deny that the 
principles of prohibition, as applied to 
the grogshops and tippling houses, had 
■won for itself a great moral triumph, 
and was now to be regarded as the 
fixed sentiment of the majority of the 
people of Maine. 

The fact that Col. Stanley, Hon. J. 
W. Bradbury, and other prominent 
Democrats had signed this call for a 
temperance meeting, disturbed the 
friends of the license system, and the 
Augusta Age declared that it was not 
true that Col. Stanley and J. W. Brad- 
bury "had come out in favor of the 
Maine Law; that what they did was to 
sign a call for a meeting, to take 
[measures for the suppression of the 
unlicensed sale of intoxicating drink, 
by an enforcement of existing laws." 

The retort was made that the dis- 
tinction was one without a difference, 
and that the gentlemen under dis- 
cussion would have to stand by the 
record of their own act. 

At the beginning of this session, 
therefore, a great temperance meeting 
was Iheld in Augusta, over which Gov- 
ernor Morrill presided, aand among 
the speakers were many of the prom- 
inent men of the State. 



LETTER XVL 

PROHIBITION ADOPTED BY THE 
PEOPLE. 

AUGUSTA, Jan. 14. (Special 
Correspondence.)— The form of the 
prohibitory bill which should be en- 
acted by the Legislature of 1858, 



caused much difference of opinion. 
The more radical element favored the 
re-enactment of the law of 1855, but 
some objected to the stringent clauses 
of the bill and the result was a com- 
promise, and the bill finally reported 
and passed, was practically the law of 
1853, with the exception that liquors 
could be manufactured for sale to mu- 
nicipal officers, authorized by law to 
purchase them. The manufacturer 
had to give a bond of $1,000 in the city 
in which his establishment was locat- 
ed that he would sell no liquors ex- 
cept his own manufacture. He could 
not sell less than 30 gallons at a time, 
and the officers of the cities and towns 
could purchase only for medicinal and 
manufacturing purposes. 

The provisions of the act did not ex- 
tend to the manufacture of cider or 
wine from fruit grown in the State, to 
be sold by the manufacturer. The bill 
also provided that if three persons 
competent to be witnesses in civil suits 
made complaint, to any municipal or 
police court, or justice of the peace, 
that intoxicating liquors were unlaw- 
fully sold or kept in any place, war- 
rants could be issued for search and 
seizure. 

The Legislative vote was as follows: 
In the House, affirmative: Bailey, 
Banks, Barton, Bean, Bicknell, Blais- 
dell, Boody, Bowen f Brackett, Brown, 
Buck. Bucknam, Burbank, S. J. Chad- 
borne, Chick, A. H. Clark, Clement, 
Conant, Coffin, C. P. Davis, J. Davis, 
Deane, J. H. Drummond, R. R. Drum- 
mond, Dunn, Estes, Fields, Fisher, 
Five. Foss, Fuller, Gilkev, Goodale, 
Hager, J. Hall, J. E. Hall, Hanson, 
Hale, Hill, Hobbs, Holt, Johnson. 
Jones, Judkins, G. A. Kimball, C. A. 
Kimball, I. C. Kimball. H. Kingsbury, 
S. Kingsbury, Knapp, Lane, Laughton, 
Longfellow, Loring, Maddox, Marcyes, 
Marshal], Merrkhew, Merrill, Miller, 
Milliken, Morrison, Oliver, Parker, T. 
Parkes, Parsons. Pattee, Percy, Per- 
kins. Pettingill, F. A. Pike, S. R. Por- 
ter, Pratt, Prentiss, Rackliff, Rice, 
Roak, Rogers, Roy en, Salley Sanborn. 
Sargent, Sawyer, Sherman, Skillings, 
Skinner, B. Smith. W. C. Smith, Snow, 
Stanley. Stockbridge, Strickland. Tap- 
ley. Tilson, Wadlin. Walsh. Wasson, 
Waterhouse, Weeks, Wheeler. Whit- 
rey. Wing. Woodbury, Woodman. 
York. Total, 104. 

Negative: Balch, Bachelder. Buxton, 
H. M. Chadborn. E. Clark, Cunning- 
ham, Hersey, Ingalls, Keene, C. E. 
Libbey, J. Libbey. Maberry, Mitchell, 
Nutting, J. Palmer, H. Pike, J. B. 
Pike, J. Porter, Ranney, Rideout, 
Spooner, M. E. Sweat, W. H. Sweat, 
Tibbetts. Trussell. Total, 27. 

The vote in the Senate was affirma- 
tive, Berry of Kennebec, Berry of Wal- 
do, Burbank, Burpee. Chapman, Con- 
nor, Davis, Fletcher, Goddard, Hamlin. 
Hobbs, Hoyt, Jones, Lotl.rop, McGil- 



35 



very, Plaisted, Scammon, Stinchfleld, 
Thomas', Twitchell, Wasson, West, 
Wing - , Wnodburv. Total 24. 

Nays, Mr. Wiggin. Total. 1. 

In addition to this act, an act was 
passed entitled, "An act to ascertain 
the will of the people concerning the 
sale of intoxicating liquors." This act 
was to the effect that an election was 
to he held on the first Monday in June, 
to give their vote in relation to an 
act entitled, "An act to restrain 
and regulate the sale of intoxicating 
liquors, and to prohibit and suppress 
drinking houses and tippling shops'," 
approved April 7, 1856, and in relation 
to an act entited 'An act for the 
suppression of drinking houses and 
tippling shops,' approved March 25, 
1858." At such meeting the qualified 
voters' were to give in their ballots as 
follows': Those in favor of the act ap- 
proved April 7, 1856, shall give in their 
ballots* with the words 'License law of 
1856,' written or printed thereon. And 
those in favor of the act approved 
March 25, 1858. shall give in their bal- 
lots with the words 'prohibitory law of 
1858,' written or printed thereon. 

After the Governor and Council had 
sorted and counted the votes, the Gov- 
ernor was authorized to issue his 
proclamation declaring the majority 
vote returned, and if the license law 
had the majority, then the act ap- 
proved March 25, 1858, was to be re- 
pealed, and the act of April 7, 1856, 
revived. 

In the discussion of this matter, the 
Democrats in the Legislature were 
arrayed upon the side of license, and 
the Republicans of prohibition. In 
the final discussion Dr. Buxton of 
Warren, and Mr. Spooner of New 
Portland, argued that the objections 
which they had against the proposed 
bill was that it was "unconstitutional, 
to refer a law to the people for rati- 
fication or for rejection." 

The vote in the election was for pro- 
hibition, 2-8,865; license, 5,912. The 
vote was small, being only, about one- 
third of the number cast in the. elec- 
tion following in September, and less 
than one-fifth of the total number of 
voters in the State at that time. It 
was expected that the vote would be 
heavy, as it was a great issue before 
the people, discussed in the press, 
churches, and even taken into the 
schools. The Portland Advertiser, 
editorially, in speaking of the elec- 
tion, said: The Democratic papers 
have persistently counselled their 
readers not to vote, and it is quite 
evident that the advice has been heed- 
ed, and obeyed. This same paper 
stated that had the Democrats la- 
bored as hard to get voters to the 
polls as they worked to keep them 
away, there would doubtless have 
been 100,000 votes thrown. The vote 
in Portland, on the issue was: 



Prohibition. License. 

Ward One 228 6 

Ward Two 163 3 

Ward Three 179 , 4 

Ward Four 109 2 

Ward Five 171 4 

Ward Six 181 2 

251 2 

Totals 1258 23 

In Westbrook the vote was 284 for 
prohibition, and for license, 0. In 
Waterville, 292 against 18; in Bangor, 
540 for prohibition, and 430 against. 
In Augusta, 304 for, 24 against. In 
Lewiston, 519 for, and against. In 
Auburn, 256 for, and against. Dan- 
ville gave 114 for, against; Hallo- 
well, 157 to 14; Gorham, 245 to 1. 

The Kennebec Journal, in comment- 
ing upon the election, said: In the 
State generally, the Prohibitory Law 
has been adopted by a large majority. 
The vote is not large, nor have the 
votes ever been large in Maine, on 
constitutional questions submitted to 
the people. In 1855, when the ques- 
tion of election of judges of probate, 
registers of probate, land agent, attor- 
ney general, adjutant general, was 
submitted to ascertain if they should 
be elected by the Legislature instead 
of being appointed by the Governor, 
only 29,853 votes were cast on the 
question, although it was on the same 
day as the State election. The of- 
ficial vote of the people on the liquor 
laws is given below by counties. 
Every county in the State, with the 
exception of Aroostook, decided in fa- 
vor of the Prohibitory Law of 1858, 
where there was a small majority for 
the liquor law. The Kennebec Jour- 
nal, in commenting upon this matter, 
said: The course taken in this mat- 
ter by removing it entirely from the 
line of politics, by submitting it fully 
and fairly to the people, proves to be 
generally satisfactory. The vote: 

License. Prohibition. 

3 r ork 28 3,112 

Cumberland 141 4,229 

Lincoln 313 1,076 

Hancock 224 1,329 

Washington 277 1,387 

Kennebec 318 3,443 

Oxford 338 2,280 

Somerset 411 1,889 

Penobscot 2,486 2,705 

Waldo 303 2,027 

Piscataquis 433 692 

Franklin 136 1,335 

Aroostook 399 370 

Androscoggin .... 62 2,184 

Sagadahoc 13 851 

Totals 5,912 28,864 

The position taken upon the question 
by the Democrats seems to have been 
a peculiar one. The Age, published at 
Augusta took the position that un- 
less the Republicans showed a division 
in their party and in the press, on the 



36 



subject of the liquor law, it amounted 
to nothing- for the Democrats to vote 
upon the question. It seems to have 
been admitted in advance that prohi- 
bition would triumph. 

For the first time, in that election, 
this question was submitted to the 
people, and the issue was plain. The 
people decided not to allow liquor 
shops for the legal sale of intoxicating 
drinks as a beverage but to confine 
the sale to mechanical, chemical and 
medicinal uses alone. 



LETTER XVIL 

LIQUOR QUESTION IN 1861. 

AUGUSTA, Jan. 15.— (Sepcial Cor- 
respondence.) — The liquor question 
did not come before the legislature 
again until the year 1861. In that 
year there were many petitions and 
memorials praying for an amendment 
to the law, and the joint select com- 
mittee to whom these were referred 
made the following report: 

That, impressed with the importance 
of the question for the investigation 
and consideration of which the com- 
mittee was selected, and fully aware 
of the deep interest felt upon the sub- 
ject by the people of the State, they 
have endeavored to give their earnest 
attention amd careful .consideration 
to their work which its importance 
and the expectations of the people 
in reference to it would seem to de- 
mand. The number of petitioners who 
have asked for alterations and amend- 
ments of the law, are very consider- 
able. And gentlemen have appeared 
before the committee from various 
parts of the State— men of the most 
eminent ability and of life long devo- 
tion to the cause of temperance — ad- 
vocating changes of more or less mo- 
ment. And on the other hand, gen- 
tlemen of equal ability and of no less 
eminent a record for devotion to the 
principles and practice of temperance 
have appeared before the committee, 
deprecating all material alterations of 
the law, and urging further time be 
given for a trial of the law as it now 
is. 

All these arguments, as well as the 
facts presented in support of them, 
the committee has tried to weigh care- 
fully. 

An argument often urged by those 
who deprecate any alteration in the 
law as enacted in 1858, is the fact that 
the bill was submitted to the people 
in a special election and by them 
adopted by a very large majority, and 
that it has, therefore, a more solemn 
sanction than the laws enacted in the 
ordinary routine of legislation. 

Undoubtedly, th-re is some force in 
the argument. And, yet, the commit- 
tee feel unwilling that any action of 
the present Legislature should be in- 



terpreted as giving to that law r the 
character and authority of a finality. 

In the June election of 1858 the peo- 
ple of the State unquestionably gave 
their sanction to the principle of pro- 
hibition. And it was upon that prin- 
ciple rather than upon the various 
provisions of the law that they voted. 
Any alteration of the law that should 
take from it the prohibitory principle 
would be in contravention of the will 
of the people as then solemnly ex- 
pressed. If, when the law has been 
fairly tried it shall be found unequal 
to the accomplishment of the end for 
which it was enacted — if, when the 
penalties it provides have been 
brought home to the various classes 
of offenders against its provisions — it 
shall be found that the law is defec- 
tive in operation, and in its penalties 
too light, then it will be the right and 
duty of the Legislature to revise that 
law and increase its penalties; for the 
committee has no doubt that it was 
and is the intention of the people of 
Maine to secure a law by means of 
which, when faithfully and judiciously 
used, the traffic in intoxicating liquors 
may be wholly suppressed. 

But the time has not yet come, in 
our opinion, for any legislative action 
upon the law looking to a material 
change of its provisions. In every in- 
stance where complaint has been made 
to us that the law is insufficient — that 
its penalties are not severe enough, or 
its guards too loose — it has appeared 
upon inquiry that no earnest and con- 
tinued effort has been made by the 
people or by the municipal authorities 
to execute it. And the committee un- 
animously agrees that in any com- 
munity where the controlling senti- 
ment of the public does not demand, 
or will not sanction the infliction of 
the penal provisions of the present 
statute, a law provided with sharper 
weapons of punishment would be even 
less likely to be put into operation 
against offenders. It is alike the dic- 
tate of reason and of experience that 
legislation should not go very far in 
advance of public sentiment. 

In those sections of the State where 
the present law has been most ap- 
plied, the fewest complaints have 
come of its insufficiency. 

For the reasons thus briefly sug- 
gested the committee unanimously 
recommended that, with the exception 
of + he single brief explanatory enact- 
ment hereinafter mentioned, the law 
of 1858 be allowed to remain intact 
upon the statute book, until an ad- 
vanced public sentiment, having used 
the means afforded by the present law, 
shall demand a change. 

As hinted above, the committee 
deem some legislation necessary on 
one important point, but not involv- 
ing any change in the original inten- 
tion of the law. In different parts of 



31 



the State magistrates have given dif- 
ferent interpretations of the term, "in- 
toxicating liquors," used in the vari- 
ous sections of the law of 1858. More 
generally th2 term has been under- 
stood to include ale, strong beer, lager 
beer and porter. But in some local- 
ities these malt liquors have not been 
understood as included in the term 
"intoxicating liquors," and the law 
therefore not enforced against the 
sale of them. 

The committee has no doubt that 
the law was intended to include these 
malt liquors, and to prohibit the cale 
of them in the same manner and to 
the same extent that it prohibits the 
sale of distilled intoxicating liquors. 
And to remove all doubt upon the 
question, the committee recommended 
the passage of a brief explanatory bill 
which is herewith submitted. 
Per Order, 

J. A. MILLIKEN. 

The legislation recommended was, 
"An Act Explanatory of an Act for 
the Suppression of Drinking Houses 
and Tippling Shops," approved March 
5, 1858. It was as follows: 

'The words 'intoxicating liquors,' 
and 'intoxication liquors/ wherever 
they occur in the 'act for the suppres- 
sion of drinking houses and tippling 
shops,' approved March 25, 1858, shall 
be understood and construed to in- 
clude strong beer, lager beer, ale, por- 
ter and other malt liquors." 



LETTER XVIIL 



THE FIRST STATE POLICE. 

AUGUSTA, Jan. 16.— (Special Cor- 
respondence.) — The Legislature of 1862 
passed a law establishing a State 
liquor agency. The authorized author- 
ities in towns under this law could 
purchase of the Massachusetts' com- 
missioner instead of the Maine agent if 
it were more convenient for them, to 
do so. 

Eaton Shaw of Portland was the 
first commissioner and from his first 
report it was evident that some of 
the towns purchased liquors not only 
of the Maine agent and the Massa- 
chusetts commissioner, but secured 
liquors also from other sources. The 
total sales of liquors for first year was 
$24,607.86, an amount far below what 
many people had expected. Commis- 
sioner Shaw called attention to the 
fact that in some parts of the . State 
there was an illegal sale of liquors, 
and that not so much attention as 
formerly had been given to the en- 
forcement of the law, no doubt due 
to the fact that the public mind was 
so engrossed with the National affairs. 
The undivided energy of the people 
was given to the Government, and 
raising troops and supplies for carry- 



ing on the Civil War, Mr. Shaw said. 
"It cannot be doubted that the moral 
convictions of a large majority of 
the citizens of this State favor pro- 
hibition. In foreign states distin- 
guished profesional mien and eminent 
statesmen are giving the whole weight 
of their influence to the principle of 
total abstinence, and are recommend- 
ing the disuse of intoxicating liquors 
and beverages, by legal restraint." 

Shaw's Annual Report. 

In his second annual report, Mr. 
Shaw said: "Agencies in about 100 
cities and towns are now supplied di- 
rectly from this office, and from these 
agencies the citizens and agents of 
various other towns obtain their sup- 
plies. In the early part of the year, 
several agencies were discontinued — 
some, where the patronage was small, 
on account of the expense of a United 
States license, others evidently be- 
cause the existing municipal boards do 
not regard a prohibitory or a restric- 
tive law with favor." 

Mr. Shaw claimed that the general 
agency was embarrassed by persons 
who traveled through the principal 
cities and towns claiming to represent 
large liquor establishments in other 
states, and selling liquors to the peo- 
ple which were below the standard. 
He recommended that the fine in such 
cases should be increased, and im- 
prisonment added for a second offense. 
He said some of the towns were in- 
convenienced because they had no 
agency, and he thought the 'State 
ought to amend the law so as to im- 
pose a fine if towns neglected to ap- 
point an agent in a city or town hav- 
ing a 'given number of inhabitants. 
He said that the extensive issue of li- 
censes in the State under the United 
States law was a cause of regret and 
that the people who held these licenses 
claimed that they had the sanction 
of the supreme law of the land, in 
carrying on a business although it was 
distinctly prohibited by State enact- 
ment. He called attention to the fact 
that in Massachusetts cases of prose- 
cution for a violation of the state liq- 
uor law which have come before the 
Supreme Court of the Commonwealth 
when a defense has been made on the 
ground of having a license under the 
United States law, a verdict had been 
given in every instance against the 
defendant. The total amount of sales 
that year were $44,341.25. 

Conditions Improved. 

In his third annual report 
[Liquor Agent Shaw quoted improved 
conditions and that the liquors fur- 
nished the city and town agencies, so 
far as he had been able to learn, had 
been as judiciously disposed of as 
could be expected and gave general 
satisfaction. Mr. 'Shaw believed that 
the Prohibitory Law made it abso- 



38 



lutely necessary to .have places where 
people could obtain liquor for legiti- 
mate uses. The total sales in that 
year increased to $76,360'. 

In his report in 1865, Mr. Shaw 
made the statement that the State 
■'comrndssion for supplying- the city and 
town agencies was generally appreci- 
ated and held 1 to be a necessity. He 
thought that the fact that town agen- 
cies in Maine were allowed to get their 
supplies from the geenral agency of 
Massachusetts was unfavorable, both 
to the interests of the State commis- 
sion and the town agencies themselves. 
The sale of liquor that year reached 
the amount of $94,008.01. 

In 1865 the liquor agency law had 
been amended to allow the Maine 
agent to sell to authorized agents in 
other states. 

In 1868 Commissioner Shaw reported 
that there were places in the State 
where liquors were sold in large quan- 
tities, under the name of town agen- 
,ies. which had no account whatever 
with the State agency. The total 
amount of sales that year were $106,- 
860.30. 

In this same report Mr. Shaw com- 
plained that although the agencies 
were generally well conducted, and 
had the confidence of the 'communi- 
ties in which they were located, there 
were instances of "their gross perver- 
sion." In several towns shops hadbeen 
opened for the sale of liquors under the 
name and pretence of a regular agen- 
cy, with the obvious intention of vio- 
lating the law. The commissioner 
thought that in large towns the people 
would be much better accommodated 
if they had more than one agency and 
this without any detriment to the 
cause of temperance. Mr. Shaw said: 

"In the opinion of physicians gener- 
ally, various liquors are necessary for 
(medicinal use, and as this commission 
Is a legitimate source of supply in 
this State of pure and reliable articles, 
it holds an important relation to the 
public welfare, I therefore suggest 
whether it is not advisable that provi- 
sion be made for an annual or more 
frequent examination of its affairs, by 
a committee from the executive 
/board." The sales for the year ending 
(Nov. 30, 1867, were $137,382.39. 

State Police. 

In 1867 the Legislature passed an act 
to provide for a State police on cer- 
tain occasions, and it was approved 
Marcih 1, ,1867. This was the law 
known as "The State Constabulary 
Act," Joshua. Nye of Waterville was 
appointed! iState 'constable. This law 
did not meet with popular approval. 
On Dec. 31, Mr. iNye made ibis first 
annual report, which also proved to 
be his last. In this document Con- 
stable Nye said, in part: 

Of the appropriation of $20,000 wihioh 
had been 'made for the State police, 
$17,310.24 'had !been expended. The 



'amount paid in fines w^as $539. Dur- 
ing the 10 months that the law was 
in effect that year 668 searches were 
made for intoxicating liquors and of 
these 279 were successful. A total of 
1,670 .gallons of liquors, valued at $5,- 
323 were seized. Other offences to the 
number of 93 were prosecuted. Twen- 
ty-mine constables were appointed in 
the several counties of the State. 
Cumberland County toad four of these. 

In his report Mr. Nye claimed that 
at the time the. law was paassed that 
more than 3,000 persons were engaged 
in the illegal sale of liquors, and pre- 
vious to the first day of May a little 
more than 2,000 of these went out 
of the business. 

Of the 394 hotel keepers in the iState, 
254 were found to be engaged in the 
traffic, and 781 persons had places in 
shops or private business. Mr Nye 
stated that he notified these persons 
that they must go out of business, 
and that the most of them obeyed. 

The following in relation to the li- 
quor agencies is taken from this re- 
port of Mr. Nye, and in view of the 
present Legislative investigation of 
this subject lis of 'more than passing 
interest and Importance: 

"Early in the Winter I was surprised 
to learn with wlhat perfect loseness a 
large part of the liquor agencies of the 
State were con ducted. Many were 
purchasing their liquors from agents 
not authorized to sell in this State, 
keeping no record at all of their sales 
or purchases, and selling to any per- 
sons almost, who asked for liquor; in 
fact, 'most of them were fast becom- 
ing 'nuisances, and liable to indict- 
ment as such. Many of these agents 
confessed that they never had read 
any of the laws regulating agencies, 
and many of them said they did not 
know there were any." 

Mr. ;Nye then states that ihe issued 
a circular to agents and town 
authorities referring them to some of 
the laws regulating the sales at 
agencies and asking their co-operation 
in having the laws enforced. He then 
goes on to say: 

"Very soon Dhere was a great 
change and most marked improve- 
ment. Some of the deputies report, 
'however, that they are troubled more 
with licensed agents in their localities 
than with all other persons. The 
more the law is enforced against un- 
'lieensed persons, so much 'more will 
persons rush to tthe licensed agencies 
for liquors, and the many complaints 
made against appointed agents show 
conclusively into what close quarters 
rum 'drinkers are driven, and how 
hard it is for them to get their liquor, 
(because the law is so effectually en- 
forced." 

Mr. 'Nye was enthusiastic over wihat 
he claimed had been the good work 
of the State Police, and declared that 
the work of this force had greatly de- 



39 



creased the sale of liquors, saying: 
"It is estimated, on reliable authority, 
that in 1866 more than one and a half 
million of dollars were paid for liquors 
brought into this 'State, while in 1867 
not one-tenth of that amount was 
brought into the State." 



LETTER XIX, 

PROHIBITION RATIFIED BY THE 
PEOPLE FOR A SECOND TIME. 

AUGUSTA, Jan. 18, (Special cor- 
respondence). — The act to provide for 
a State police passed in 1876, provided 
that an officer to be called the con- 
stable of the State should be appointed 
by the Governor and Council. This 
constable upon application of ten or 
more legal voters in any city or town 
could appoint one or more deputies if 
he was satisfied that the local force 
failed to enforce any law of the State 
and the public good required it. The 
number of deputies in any county 
could in no case exceed ten, and the 
entire number in the State at any one 
time could not exceed thirty. The 
State constable and his deputies had 
exercise throughout the State of all 
the common law and statutory powers 
of constables, except the power to 
serve civil processes. It was the duty 
of the constable and his deputies to 
see that the law was enforced in all 
parts of the State, and to co-operate 
with the sheriffs and their deputies, 
and the city marshals and their police 
officers. 

They were forbidden to act in any 
case unless in their judgment there 
should be a failure neglect or inability, 
in the part of the local authorities, to 
cause persons violating any laws to be 
prosecuted and punished. The depu- 
ties were to receive $3 a day when on 
duty, and when obliged to travel, were 
allowed their expenses. 

A bill was introduced that this act 
should be submitted to a vote of the 
people, but that failed of passage. 

The Legislature of 1868 met on Jan- 
uary 1. On January 3 in the Senate, 
E. Wilder Farley of Lewiston presented 
an act to repeal the law of the last 
Legislature, entitled An Act To Pro- 
vide For the State Police, Under Cer- 
tain Circumstances. He moved a 
suspension of the rules "that the bill 
be read at the present time." On mo- 
tion of Senator John L. Stevens of 
Kennebec the bill was laid upon the 
table. Those who were opposed to 
the law were strenuous in their exer- 
tions that this matter be given early 
consideration, and so it was referred 
to the committee on judiciary, who 
were instructed to give the matter 
their earliest attention. 

In the House on the second day of 
the session Representative Brickett of 
Augusta presented a bill for the re- 
peal of the constabulary law, and it 



was tabled upon motion of Parker P. 
Burleigh. On January 9 the matter 
wa~ called up in the House, and Mr. 
Brickett moved a suspension of the 
rules, and that the bill be given its 
second reading. This the House re- 
fused to do, by vote of 57 to 66, and 
the bill was referred to the House 
judiciary committee. When it finally 
came before the house the vote was as 
follows: Affirmative, D. Allen, O. Allen, 
Atkinson, Atwood, Bailey, Barrell, Bux- 
ton, Beale, Bean, Berry, Bickford, 
Blanchard, Bradford, Davis, Brown 
Buck, Bucknam, M. V. B. Chase, I. 
Chick, Cilley, S. H. Clark, Coffin, Cush- 
ing, Dame, Ellis, Farmer, Farnham, 
Fenderson, Files, Fish, Foster, Frost, 
Frye, Gibbs, Gilman, Gerald, Gordon, 
Grindle, Hains, Hale, A. Hall, 
D. Hall, S. Hanson, W. H. Han- 
son, Hartwell, Haskell, Henley, 
Hinckley, Holland, Hutchins, Hutch- 
inson, Jackson, Jordan, Lapham, 
Leighton, Libby, T. Lord, McArthur, 
Merry, Messer, N. P. Meserve, Morris, 
Nowell, Oak, Packard, Payne, J. D. 
Parker, P. C. Parsons, Peaslee, Pennell, 
L. Perkins, Perley, Philbrick, Phinney, 
Pierce, Pinkham, Plaisted, Prescott, 
Pulsifer. Purington, Rogers, Sawyer, 
Shaw, Spear, Stevens. Tainter, Talbot, 
Thomas, Thompson, Titcomb, Tolman, 
Tukey, Wagg, Wakefield, Walton, Wat- 
son, Webster, Whidden, Whittier, Wy- 
man, York. Total 100. 

Negative, D. R. Allen, G. M. Chase, 
H. H. Monroe, W. W. Parsons, Pollard, 
Shepley, Stetson, Woodman. Total, 8. 

In the Senate the vote was affirma- 
tive, Billings, Burpee, Caldwell, Cros- 
by, Fulton, Greene, Hersey, Hobbs, 
Holbrook, Houghton, Ludwing, Ma.Ym, 
Perkins, Porter, Ramsdell, Robie, 
Weld, Woodbury, Woodman, Wood- 
ward. Total, 20. 

Navs, Boynton, Brown, Dennison, 
Dyer* Eaton, Hamlin, Hobson, Parks, 
Read, Wingate. Total, 10. 

The Legislature of 1867 had also 
passed an act entitled "An act to as- 
certain the will of the people concern- 
ing the sale of intoxicating liquors." 
The people to meet on the first Monday 
in June, and give in t: eir votes for the 
suppression of drinking houses' and 
tippling shops. This act which was 
amendatory of the laws of 1858, greatly 
strengthened the prohibitory laws. 

The law upon which the people vot- 
ed increased the penalties. Persons 
convicted of selling liquors in addition 
to the fine provided for, were obliged 
to undergo imprisonment in the Coun- 
ty Jail for 60 days. Persons convicted 
of being common sellers on the first 
conviction were imprisoned in the 
county jail for three months, and for 
second and every subsequent convic- 
tion got four months in county jail. 
Persons convicted of keeping drinking 
houses and tippling shops on the first 
conviction were imprisoned in county 
jail for three months, and for every 



40 



subsequent conviction were imprisoned 
six months. 

The act also provided that in the fu- 
ture the manufacture of all kinds of 
intoxicating liquors, except cider, was 
prohibited. 

The election day was a stormy one, 
and coming at a busy season of the 
year, the vote was not large, although 
it was very evident that had it been 
necessary, the friends of prohibition 
would have rallied in much larger 
numbers. People generally, after this 
election, believed that the principle of 
the prohibition of the sale of liquors as 
a beverage was firmly established, as 
a fundamental rule of the State. In 
this special election, the vote by coun- 
ties was, as follows: 

Yes. No. 

Androscoggin 1,707 64 

Aroostook 772 249 

Cumberland 3,033 575 

Franklin 910 143 

Hancock 941 254 

Kennebec 2,043 387 

Knox 643 62 

Lincoln 655 119 

Oxford 1,153 384 

Penobscot 2,039 725 

Piscataquis 572 253 

Sagadahoc 736 75 

.Somerset 1,290 382 

"Waldo 693 761 

Washington 992 610 

York 1,189 493 

Totals 19,358 5,536 

Thus, for the second time was the 
Prohibitory Law submitted to the 
people, and the people ratified it by a 
large majority. 

In the election of 1866, General 
Chamberlain had been elected gov- 
ernor over Eben F. Pillsbury, the 
Democratic candidate, by 27,490. In 
1867, which was an "off year," Gen- 
eral Chamberlain's majority over Mr. 
Pillsbury was only 11,342. An at- 
tempt was made on the part of the 
Democratic Press, to show that this 
was due to the unpopularity of the 
IState constabulary law. Such, how- 
ever, does not seem to be the facts. 
There was no doubt whatever of Mr. 
Chamberlain's re-election, and in 1867 
while the Democratic vote increased 
about 4,000, the Republican vote fell 
oif about 12,000. 

Governor Chamberlain. 

Governor Chamberlain in his ad- 
dress in January, 1869, said: 

"Legislation upon what a man shall 
eat or drink, is certainly a pretty 
strong assertion of 'State rights' over 
those of the individual. But every 
good citizen will admit that drunken- 
ness is an evil; a dishonor to man- 
hood, a disturber of society, and a 
detriment to the State. It stands out 
from other vices in being the exciting 
cause of much of the costly litigation 
and criminal proceeding before the 



courts, and in driving men to crimes 
which they would not otherwise com- 
mit. Hence it is the duty of the 
State to restrain men from it, and 
protect the innocent from its depreda- 
tions; and the duty of the individual 
to yield some of his personal rights 
for the general good. Our State has 
accordingly enacted the present Pro- 
hibitory Law as in its judgment an 
adequate means to this end, and 
wherever it has been executed it ap- 
pears to have been effective. 

"Since the repeal of the Constabu- 
lary Act there does not appear to 
have been much effort to make use 
of the ordinary means of enforcing the 
Prohibitory and kindred laws. In 
some localities the friends and guar- 
dians of good order have done their 
duty, and the traffic in intoxicating 
liquors is effectually suppressed. But 
for the most part there seems to have 
been a reaction from the severe meas- 
ures of the previous year, and also a 
willingness on the part of some to let 
the reaction do its worst, in order to 
give urgency to the movement for 
more stringent legislation. Precise- 
ly what measures to adopt to secure 
the more general execution of this law 
is a question on which the wisest and 
best will differ. It may be proposed 
to restore the late Constabulary sys- 
tem, but experience found in that 
much that was objectionable. It was 
essentially repugnant to the deep set- 
tled notions of municipal rights. It 
was an independent and abnormal 
power in the civil system. It afforded 
peculiar liabilities to abuse and in- 
discretions in its exercise. We should 
be able to provide some means which 
would more command the consent and 
co-operation of the people. I think 
it highly desirable to accomplish this 
end if possible through our established 
civil officers. But at all events let 
us execute our laws or repeal them. 

"Let no one imagine that with the 
severest execution — either of the liq- 
uor or the murder laws, all crime and 
all evil are to be expelled from among 
men. The most we can hope to do 
is to intimidate and restrain them — 
the Divine law has as yet achieved, 
no more. % 

"These are important matters, and 
I am persuaded that you will deal 
with them without rashness or fear." 



LETTER XX. 

GOVERNOR CHAMBERLAIN'S 
MESSAGE. 

AUGUSTA, Jan. 19. (Special Corre- 
spondence.) — A political party ap- 
peared in the State, in 1869, known as 
the Temperance Party. It was com- 
posed of men claiming to be dissatis- 
fied with the manner in which the 
prohibitory laws were enforced. 



41 



Some complaints were made against 
Governor Chamberlain, to the effect 
that he was not entirely friendly to the 
principle of prohibllion. Governor 
Chamberlain was a candidate for re- 
election on the Republican ticket, and 
the Democratic candidate was Frank- 
lin Smith. The Temperance partv 
nominated N. G. Hichborn. The total 
vote that year was a small one, being 
95,082, as compared with 131,782. the 
previous year; a falling off of 36,700. 
The Republican vote was 51,314; com- 
pared with 75,523, the previous- year a 
decrease of 24,209. The Democratic 
vote was 39,033, as compared with 56,- 
207, a falling off of 17,160. The vote for 
Mr. Hichborn, the Temperance candi- 
date, was 4,735, and this no doubt was 
largely drawn from the Republican 
ranks. 

_ That part of Governor Chamberlain's 
inaugural address in- 1870, which was 
directed toward the temperance issue, 
attracted unusual attention. In begin- 
ning his remarks upon this subject 
General Chamberlain said 

'The accounts of the State liquor 
commissioner and his method of doing 
business have been carefullv examined 
and are found highly satisfactory, 
borne points remarked on in his report 
will demand your attention. The prac- 
tice of turning in confiscated liquors— 
always more or less impure— to the 
town agencies, taken in connection 
with the fact that we have provided a 
btate commissioner who is paid and 
placed under bonds to furnish nothing 
bu_ the purest liquors, which the town 
agents are imperatives required to 
purchase exclusively of him, is so ab- 
surd that good logic, if not good mor- 
als^ demand that it should be prohibit- 
ive Temperance Party. 
Governor Chamberlain took excep- 
t 10n + \ t0 m the attack s made upon him, 
by the Temperance party, their meth- 
ods of conducting their campaign, and 
denied the position which they as- 
sumed, that they were the only real 
friends of temperance and Prohibition. 
In alluding to this party, Gov. Cham- 
berlain said: 

''A principle prized by all was arro- 
gated by a few, and made the placard 
it not the watchword of a political or- 
ganization. The result, as might have 
been expected, was to give to a worthv 
and sacred cause the appearance of 
defeat. The cause has suffered, but 
should not be held to blame. Its very 
virtue was its misfortune. The strong 
hold which it had upon the hearts of 
the people was the occasion of its be- 
ing seized upon to cover sinister inten- 
tions. Various elements of disaffection 
availed themselves of the confusion 
which their cries had raised, and ral- 
lied in a strange companionship, under 
a banner which had never been so en- 
trusted to them, and which lost its 
consecration by their laying on of v 



hands. The elements which conspire! 
in this movement and the animus 
which impelled it, appear to have been 
so well understood by our people as 
to require no analysis by me. Four 
thousand seven hundred votes in a to- 
tal of nearly 100,000 after the unpar- 
alled resorts of that campaign, prove 
that whoever else voted that way the 
Temperance men of Maine did not. 
They answer to a longer roll-call. They 
muster a nobler host. The people of 
this State are a temperate people, and 
"in favor of temperance," if that can 
mean anything more. They are also 
a manly people. They do not fear to 
express their opinions, nor shrink 
from espousing any just cause. What 
they desire of right or expedient in 
their laws they will in their own good 
time have. But anything forced upon 
them contrary to their best judgment. 
and consequent upon their good nature 
alone, cannot be expected to receive 
their hearty moral support, or be pro- 
ductive of real good. It is a sad day 
however, for the welfare of this State 
when any rash measure must be 
adopted simply because no one dares 
for a moment to question its expediency 
lest its champions should taunt him 
with infidelity to a creed of which 
they are not the chosen apostles, and 
anathematize him in the name of a 
power which they have usurped. 

"Gentlemen, I yield to no man in re- 
spect for the rights of minorities. 
This is the glory and nobility of liber- 
ty. Men may vote as they please and 
be protected. They may do and say 
what they please, perhaps: but not 
without being held responsible for the 
abuse of the privilege. And if I may 
be allowed the opportunity to advert 
to matters which, although of a per- 
sonal nature, yet in their effects rise 
to the dignity of a public considera- 
tion, let me here deorecate the prac- 
tice so recklessly resorted to in the 
last campaign, of aspersing the mo- 
tives of official conduct, and of mis- 
representing private character for po- 
litical and sinister ends. So far as 
those efforts were successful, I fear 
they did no good to the, cause of tem- 
perance, or to the young men of Maine. 
It is a regard for their welfare, and 
solicitude that those who have fol- 
lowed me on other fields may not be 
seduced to wrong ways, by the false 
fancy that they are following me still, 
that I ask you to let me lift my stan- 
dard for a moment that they may see 
where I am. Let them not think that 
the record of a life-long loyalty is so 
easily reversed. I shall not seek safety 
in the lines of the enemy to escape 
the mutinies of the discontented, more 
anxious for their own way than for 
a right cause; nor turn back to camp 
because some raw recruit on picket, 
with the impetuosity of terror, unable 
to discern front from rear, or friend 
from foe, shrieks at me for the coun- 
tersign. 



42 



"Let us not, however, in our scorn 
of hypocrisy, or resistance to ill-judged 
or encroaching measures, be forced in - 
to a seeming antagonism to virtue, and 
to those who love and labor for its 
cause. But rather with cool brain 
and steady nerve, summoning all the 
agencies of good, whether of heart or 
hand, go on to practice and promote 
the things that are honest and pure 
and of good report. Those who join 
wisdom with zeal to promote virtue 
among the people, will labor to nour- 
ish aright public sentiment as well as 
to secure punitive enactment. Some 
margin must always be left for differ- 
ences of moral sentiment. Other- 
wise we might break down the public 
conscience. For one, however, I do 
not object to a law's being somewhat 
in advance of public opinion — that is, 
more stringent in its provisions than 
the people really like to obey. The 
requisitions of even an impossible 
virtue may avail for good. Its broad, 
high aspect may strengthen and hold 
up some that would otherwise fall be- 
fore the influence of bad surroundings, 
and the terrors of its penalty might 
cool the recklessness of some who 
would not be restrained by milder 
persuasives. But when a law is wide- 
ly different from the people's judgment, 
and provokingly contrary to their 
wishes; then, instead of expecting it 
to go on crushing its way like an un- 
relenting law of the universe, it would 
be better to' look for one that takes 
some cognizance of human conditions, 
and reach out a hand that will meet 
half way the trembling instincts of 
good. These are questions which go 
to the foundations of society. Indeed 
it may be said that wisdom consists in 
seeing the practical points of contract 
between the abstract and the human 
right. For the human law is not as 
the divine. That declares the ways 
of absolute justice and the inexorable 
right. But the object of human law 
is to protect individual rights so that 
every man may be free according to 
his own conscience to work out his 
obedience to the higher. Any law, 
therefore, which proposes to abridge 
personal rights, should be ventured 
upon with the utmost caution, and ad- 
ministered with the widest charity. 
There are other things to be thought 
of besides restraining men from the 
use of intoxicating drinks. Although 
this be a parent of crime, and begets 
monsters from which all the good avert 
their faces and seek to save their fel- 
lows, yet we must not expect that it 
can be wholly subdued and driven from 
among men. The laws against in- 
toxicating liquors have been as well 
executed and obeyed as the laws 
against profanity, theft, unchastity or 
murder. Even if they are executed, 
they will not avail to extinguish crime, 
nor banish evil from the hearts of 
wicked men. "We must consider what 
can be done. Restrain and intimidate 



as much as you can by law; it is only 
by the gosuel still that men can be 
converted from evil. 

"I see no reason why measures for 
the promotion of temperance should 
not be approached as calmly, and, if 
need be, as boldly as any other ques- 
tion of so much moment. Nay, it is 
such questions as these, most of all, 
which demand the full measure of 
your wisdom, your candor and your 
courage." 



LETTER XXL 

GOVERNOR SYDNEY PERHAM. 

AUGUSTA, Jan. 20. (Special Corre- 
spondence). — The Democrats in 1870, 
nominated General Charles W. Rob- 
erts of Bangor, as their standard 
bearer. He had been a soldier of the 
Civil War, and was popular through- 
out the State. The Republicans nom- 
inated the Hon. Sidney Per ham, of 
Paris, a man widely known, who had 
already served in Congress. He was a 
strong advocate of temperance, and 
of prohibition. The Temperance 

Party, which, although numbering 
only about 5,000, had conducted such 
a vigorous campaign in the previous 
election, made no nomination. Mr. 
Perham was elected by a vote of 54,- 
019 to 45,733. 

Governor Perham, in his inaugural 
address in 1871, said: 

"The evils resulting from the use of 
intoxicating drinks are so destructive 
to all the highest interests of the 
State, and so promotive of all that 
we must deplore, that neither the 
philanthropist nor the statesman can 
ignore the demand for their suppres- 
sion. To grapple effectively with an 
evil so interwoven with the love of 
gain, the appetite, the prejudices, and 
the social habits of the people, and to 
which so many in high social stand- 
ing are wedded, is, in some respects, 
an unwelcome duty, and requires 
courage and devotion which many 
good people shrink from exercising. 

"The work necessary to restrict 
this evil to the smallest possible lim- 
its, belongs primarily, and perhaps 
chiefly, to the domain of what is 
termed moral effect. Still experience 
shows, and all, or nearly all, the peo- 
ple of this State concede that in this, 
as well as in our efforts against a 11 
other vices and crimes, the aid of leg- 
islative enactments is indispensable. 
The only question is as to the kind of 
Legislation best calculated to produce 
the desired result. 

"For centuries the traffic in intoxi- 
cating drinks has been the subject of 
restrictive Legislation in every Chris- 
tian nation — the Laws being more or 
less stringent according to the public 
opinion of the times. Sometimes com- 
munities and governments have 
sought to protect themselves from the 



evils of the traffic by licensing only 
such persons as possessed moral char- 
acter which, in the opinion of the au- 
thorities, qualified them for the trade. 
Sometimes a large sum has been re- 
quired as a license fee for the pur- 
pose of reducing the number of places 
where liquors were to be sold; thus 
discouraging their use by higher 
prices and greater inconvenience in 
obtaining them. Sometimes relief and 
protection have been sought by the 
entire prohibition of the traffic ex- 
cept for certain specified purposes. 
For 'more than forty years the atten- 
tion of the people of this Country has 
been given to the traffic and the long 
train of evils inseparably connected 
with it. 

"Many laws have been passed by 
all the States upon this subject all in- 
tended to prevent or limit the sale. In 
many of these States the laws are 
very stringent against it. In two of 
three a clause in their constitution 
forbids the licensing of the trade; 
and in as many more liquor sellers 
are held responsible for all damages 
to individuals and society resulting 
from it. 

"After years of discussion, Maine 
adopted the policy of prohibition in 
1851, and with the exception of one _ or 
two years, it has been continued with 
remarkable unanimity. 

"This legislation is not intended to 
interfere improperly with the personal 
habits of individuals. It only seeks to 
prohibit a public trade, which in the 
opinion of a large proportion of our 
people— perhaps all— is a public mis- 
chief. Nor does it attempt to dictate 
what we shall drink more than, the 
laws against the sale of diseased, poi- 
sonous, or otherwise .nhealthy articles 
of food, dictate what we shall eat. In 
both cases the laws are against the 
sale, not the drinking or eating. The 
laws of prohibition upon gambling 
houses, impure books and pictures, 
houses of ill fame and tippJing shops, 
all rest upon the same principle, viz.: 
that these trades are inconsistent with 
the public welfare, which it is not only 
the right but the duty of the govern- 
ment to provide against in all legiti- 
mate ways. There is, and can be, no 
difference of opinion amongst intelli- 
gent men as to the effect of the liquor 
traffic upon the prosperity of the 
State, and the happiness and welfare 
of the people. It is in direct hostility 
to all interests of the Country. No 
man can rightfully claim that a 
trade so injurious in i;s effect should 
be permitted to exist for his profit or 
accommodation. Every man is bound 
by his duty to society and the State to 
subordinate his personal preference 
and interests for the general good. 

"If the principles I have thus 
briefly stated are correct, it follows 
that it is the duty of the State to en- 
act and enforce, and of all good citi- 



zens to obey and sustain, such laws 
as will most effectually prevent the 
traffic. It is not necessary to argue 
this question further before a body of 
intelligent, thinking men like this. If 
any have doubts on this subject, they 
would, I am confident, be removed by 
a careful comparison of the localities 
in this State where the law is enforced 
with places having a similar popula- 
tion in states where prohibitory legis- 
lation does not exist. 

"The present law, where it is en- 
forced, so far as I can judge, as ef- 
fective in the suppression of the traf- 
fic as are our other criminal laws 
against the crimes they are intended 
to prevent. In a majority of counties 
the law appears to be well executed 
with very favorable results. Whether 
any further legislation in regard to 
the law or its execution is necessary or 
expedient, is for the Legislature to de- 
termine. I commend the whole sub- 
ject to your careful consideration; re- 
minding you and the people of th-e 
State that while recognizing the law 
as a necessary auxiliary in our efforts 
against intemperance, we should not 
neglect to use all the moral influence 
within our reach to create and main- 
tain a correct public sentiment on this 
subject; for on this the existence and 
enforcement of the laws and the good 
Ave hope to see accomplished through 
these efforts depend. 

Senator Frye. 

At this time, there was discussion in 
plenty not only in Maine but through- 
out the Country over the effects of a 
prohibitory law. Senator William P. 
Frye, then a congressman, writing 
from Washington in a letter addressed 
to George S. Page, Esq., on this subject, 
said: 

"The Maine law, has not been a fail- 
ure, in that, first: It has made rum- 
selling a crime, so that only the lowest 
and most debased will now engage in 
it. Second: The rum buyer is a par- 
ticipator in crime, and the large major- 
ity of respectable moderate drinkers 
have become abstainers. Third: It has 
gradually created a public sentiment 
against both selling and drinking. 
Fourth, in all of the country portions 
of the State, where, 20 years ago, there 
was a grocery or tavern at every four 
corners, and within a circuit of two 
miles unpainted houses, broken win- 
dows, neglected farms, poor school- 
houses, broken hearts and homes, it 
has banished almost every such groc- 
ery or tavern, and introduced peace, 
plenty, happiness and prosperity. 
These two things, making the traffic 
disgraceful both to seller and buyer, 
the renovating and reforming the 
country portion of the State, are the 
worthy and well-earned trophies of our 
Maine liquor laws, and commend it to 
the prayers and well wishes of all 
good citizens. Of this law I have been 



44 



prosecuting attorney for 10 year?, and 
cheerfully bear witness to its efficiency 
whenever and wherever faithfully ad- 
ministered. It has done more good than 
any law on our statute book and is 
still at work." 

Perham Re-elected. 

In 1871 Mr. Perham was re-elected 
by an increased majority, Charles P. 
Kimball being the Democratic candi- 
date, and in 1872 he was again elected, 
Mr. Kimball again being the Demo- 
cratic nominee. Governor Perham in 
1873 in relation to the enforcement of 
prohibitory laws, wrote in his inaugu- 
ral address: 

"All agree that intemperance is one 
of the greatest evils that afflict the 
people. How to eradicate it, is a 
question that addresses itself to all 
lovers of sobriety and good order, and 
involves the highest interests of the 
State. The legislator who is compelled 
to aid in levying taxes upon his con- 
stituents for the support of criminal 
courts, jails, prisons, poor houses and 
reformatory institutions, two-thirds of 
which are made necessary by the 
liquor traffic, cannot ignore the duty 
of removing, as far as possible, the 
cause that imposes these heavy bur- 
dens. Our State suffers greatly by 
this evil, and still no one can go out 
of the State in any direction without 
noticing a contrast in this regard, 
highly commendable to our people. It 
is probable that less intoxicating li- 
quors are drank in Maine than in any 
other place of equal population in the 
Country, perhaps in the civilized world. 
This enviable position has been 
reached through many years of indiv- 
idual and organized moral effort, sup- 
plemented by efficient prohibitory 
laws: neither means could have been 
equally successful alone. Other states 
have temperance men and women as 
devoted and as efficient as ours, but 
having no laws to aid them, or lacking 
the public sentiment necessary to sus- 
tain and enforce them, the success they 
deserve is not achieved. 

"While some doubt the wisdom of 
prohibition, it has been so often and so 
emphatically approved by the people 
that it may be regarded as a part of 
the settled policy of the State. The 
law of the last Legislature, making it 
the duty of sheriffs and their deputies 
to institute legal proceedings against 
violations of the laws prohibiting the 
sale of intoxicating liquors, has se- 
cured a more effective enforcement of 
these laws. The effects are percepti- 
ble in the decrease of drunkenness, and 
consequently in less arrests on that 
account; in the reduction of criminal 
business generally, and in thousand of 
comforts and blessings brought to 
homes where poverty and misery 
reigned before. If it be said that it has 
destroyed an important business, and 
left the venders of liquor without em- 
ployment, and their shops unoccupied. 



it is answered that the money former- 
ly paid to support their business has 
been turned into other and more useful 
channels of trade, or into the families 
of those whose hard earned money 
supported the traffic. 

"The law prohibting the sale of cider 
the same as other intoxicating drinks, 
except when sold by the manufacturer, 
has, it is believed, failed to meet the 
expectations of its friends. It has, how- 
ever, demonstrated the fact, (if any 
demonstration was necessary,) that 
cider in any of its forms, is no less in- 
jurious when sold by the manufacturer 
or his agent than when sold by any 
other man. The difficulty in discrimi- 
nating between cider in its harmless 
and hurtful condition is such that most 
of the temperance organizations, after 
much experience and careful consider- 
ation, have found it necesary to include 
cider with other intoxicants in their 
pledges. It must be remembered, how- 
ever, that a majority of our people do 
not view the subject from this stand- 
point, and have not come to regard 
the sale of cider as an evil equal to the 
sale of other drinks that are held to be 
intoxicating by the law. It must also 
be remembered, that any law to be ef- 
fective and permanent, must express, 
not simply what its friends deem to be 
wise, but what the aggregate moral 
sense of the people recognizes as right. 
It will not be denied that many shops 
where, professedly, nothing stronger 
than cider is sold, either in conse- 
quence of the age of the cider or of its 
being mixed with stronger liquors, are 
among the worst drinking places in the 
State. This is especially observable 
at the present time, in places where 
the enforcement of the law makes it 
difficult to obtain other liquors. 

"Many young men supposing the 
beverage sold to be harmless, take their 
first departure towards a life of shame 
and disgrace, in these places. Against 
the sale of cider when it is simply a 
harmless beverage, there is. I presume, 
no desire to interfere, but when by age 
or adulteration it becomes intoxicating, 
and is retailed and drank for its intox- 
icating qualities, and tends to educate 
the appetite for stronger liquors, the 
sale becomes a positive evil. 

"Conscious of the difficulties attend- 
ing legislation upon this subject, I sub- 
mit these suggestions for your consid- 
eration, in the hope that in your wis- 
dom you may be able to embody the 
principles upon which they are based 
in the form of law that would be prac- 
ticable in its operation, and commend 
itself to the judgment of the people." 



LETTER XXIL 

GOVERNOR NELSON DINGLEY, JR. 

AUGUSTA, Jan. 21.— (Special to the 
EXPRESS.)— The Legislature of 1872 
passed "An Act Relating to the Duties 
of Sheriffs and County Attorneys." 



45 



This law made it the duty of sher- 
iffs to obey all orders and directions 
relating to the enforcement and exe- 
cution of the laws of the State, as they 
should receive from the Governor. It 
was made the duty of sheriffs and 
their deputies diligently and faithfully 
to inquire into the laws of the State, 
and in particular the laws against the 
illegal sale of intoxicating liquors, and 
the keeping of drinking houses and 
tippling shops. The law provided that 
sheriffs and their deputies should be 
entitled to the same per diem com- 
pensation as for attending on the Su- 
preme Court and the same fees for 
traveling, as for service of warrants 
in criminal cases, with the necesary 
incidental expenses which were just 
and proper. The county attorneys 
were obliged to summon before the 
grand jury witnesses whose names 
had been furnished by the sheriff or 
his deputies, and to direct inquiries 
before that body into violations of law. 
If the Governor, after investigation, 
was satisfied that any sheriff or coun- 
ty attorney had wilfully refused and 
neglected the discharge of his duties, 
it was the duty of the Governor to 
bring this fact to the attention of the 
Legislature, at the earliest practical 
day. 

At this time the enforcement of the 
Prohibitory Law seemed to be gener- 
ally satisfactory in the State. Hon. 
"William P. Frye, writing to Hon. Neal 
Dow, in relation to the effects of the 
enforcement of prohibition, said: 

"I can and do, from my own per- 
sonal observation, unhesitatingly af- 
firm that the consumption of intoxi- 
cating liquors in Maine is not today 
one-fourth as great as it was 20 years 
ago; that, in the country portions of 
the State, the sale and use have al- 
most entirely ceased; that the law of 
itself, under a vigorous enforcement 
of its provisions, has created a tem- 
perance sentiment which is marvelous, 
and to which opposition is powerless. 
In my opinion, our remarkable tem- 
perance reform today is the legitimate 
child of the law." 

The above statement from Senator 
Frye was concurred in by United 
States Senators Lot M. Morrill and 
Hannibal Hamlin, and by members of 
Congress, James G. Blaine, John 
Lvnch, John A. Peters and Eugene 
Hale. 

Nelscn Dingley, Jr. 

Nelson Dingley, Jr., in 1873, was 
elected Governor. He was a man of 
marked ability ana thorough honesty. 
Afterwards he represented Maine in 
the most distinguished manner in Con- 
gress. He had all his life been an ad- 
vocate of prohibition, and had con- 
sistently and logically argued in favor 
of the Prohibitory Law. He was a 
devoted student of this subject and, 



perhaps, no man in the Country was 
more thoroughly informed upon it 
than was Governor Dingley. No man 
was better able to speak of what it 
had accomplished than was he. In 
his address to the Legislature, in 1874, 
Governor Dingley took up the subject 
to a considerable length, saying: 

"It is cheaper and more effective 
and beneficent to prevent crime by re- 
moving its causes, than to allow these 
to ripen into criminal acts which re- 
quire punishment. A large part of 
this work of prevention is within the 
sphere of personal moral effort; yet 
that important portion which consists 
in removing the hindrances to right 
conduct, and repressing the tempta- 
tions to vice interposed by men in 
their relations as citizens, comes con- 
fessedly within the domain of law. In- 
deed, no government fulfils its mis- 
sion which forgets that the State can 
in this way do much to make it easy 
to do right and difficult to do wrong. 
So large a proportion of pauperism 
and crime arises from intemperance, 
of which the dram shop is the prolific 
cause, that all citizens who have re- 
gard for the public safety and welfare, 
as well as the highest court of the 
Nation, unite in affirming the princi- 
ple that the liquor traffic is a source 
of grave peril to society, against 
which it is the right and duty of the 
State to protect itself by such enact- 
ments as the Legislative authority 
shall consider best calculated to that 
end. 

"On this well settled principle has 
rested all the legislation ever had in 
restraint of the liquor traffic, whether 
involving the principle of license or of 
prohibition. For more than 200 years, 
first in the parent province and com- 
monwealth, and subsequently in the 
State of Maine, a thorough trial was 
had of the license system, in every 
form that could be devised. This ex- 
perience led to so widespread a convic- 
tion that any system of licensing dram 
shops is nearly powerless to repress 
the temptations which promote intem- 
perance, that in 1851 this State adopt- 
ed the policy of prohibiting drinking 
houses and tippling shops altogether, 
and of authorizing the sale of intoxi- 
cating liquors only for medicinal and 
mechanical purposes, by agents ap- 
pointed for that purpose. This system 
has had a trial of only 22 years; yet 
its success, in this brief period, has on 
the whole been so much greater than 
that of any other plan yet devised, 
that prohibition may be said to be ac- 
cepted by a large majority of the peo- 
ple as the proper policy of this State 
towards drinking houses and tippling 
shops; and to be acquiesced in to a 
great extent by others, as an experi- 
ment which should have as thorough a 
trial as other systems that preceded it. 
By dealing in this spirit with a ques- 



46 



tion affecting so momentous interests 
there will ultimately be substantial 
agreement among all good citizens on 
such a policy as experience shall have 
shown to be most effective in repress- 
ing the evils of the liquor traffic. To 
this end, such an investigation into 
the effects of the traffic, and the re- 
sults of legislation to suppress or re- 
strain the same, as is contemplated by 
a proposition introduced into Congress 
by one of the representatives from 
this State, could not fail to be in the 
highest degree beneficial. 

"It would be unwise for any one to 
•claim that prohibition has entirely 
suppressed or can entirely suppress the 
dram shop. That is no more possible 
than it is for human enactments to 
entirely prevent theft, robbery, arron. 
or even murder. Indeed, any effective 
enactments against practices which are 
exceptionally profitable, and at the 
same time pander to men's appetites 
and passions, are peculiarly difficult of 
thorough enforcement, as has always 
been found the case with statutes pro- 
hibiting gambling saloons and houses 
of ill-fame, as well as drinking houses 
and tippling shops. The true test of 
the merits of such legislation, tf what- 
ever character, is not whether it en- 
tirely uproots the evils prohibited; but 
whether on the whole it does not re- 
press them as effectually as any sys- 
tem that can be devised. 

"Where our prohibitory laws have 
been well enforced, few will deny 
that they have accomplished great 
good. In more than threefourths of 
the State, especially in the rural por- 
tions, where 40 years since intoxicat- 
ing liquors were so freely and com- 
monly sold as any article of merchan- 
dise, public sentiment has secured 
such an enforcement of these laws, 
-that there are now in these districts 
few open bars; and even secret sales 
are so much reduced as to make 
drunkenness in the rural towns com- 
paratively rare. The exceptions to this 
state of things are mainly in some of 
the cities and larger villages, where 
public sentiment on this question is 
usually not so well sustained as in 
towns more remote from the tide of 
immigration. But even in these 
places our prohibitory legislation has 
always been enforced to some extent, 
and not infrequently with much 
thoroughness; and has never been 
without that important influence for 
good which all laws in moral direc- 
tions exert. Constant, uniform and 
Impartial enforcement, to the highest 
practicable standard, is required in 
any municipality, in order to obtain 
the full benefit of any system of leg- 
islation in restraint of the liquor 
'traffic. Under our system of govern- 
ment, where the public sentiment of 
•municipalities even will have great 
influence in controlling the measure 
of enforcement of this as well as other 



laws, the only permanent remedy for 
any laxity in this direction in excep- 
tional localities, ultimately lies in 
such a quickening of public opinion 
as will either give new energy and 
purpose to local officers in power, or 
will secure the election of other men 
in their places. For it should be re- 
membered that local officers are pri- 
marily required to enforce the laws 
against drinking houses and tip- 
pling shops, and ^an do this work, if 
they will, much 'more satisfactorily 
and effectively than any others. 

"In addition to 'the duties thus im- 
posed on local officers, the act of 
1872 and the executive orders issued 
in 'Compliance therewith, make it the 
duty of sheriffs to inquire into all 
violations of these and other laws of 
the State, within their respective 
counties, and to institute legal pro- 
ceedings against such violations. The 
act also imposes upon county attor- 
neys the duty of directing inquiries 
before the grand jury into such vio- 
lations, and of prosecuting persons 
indicted and securing the prompt 
sentence of such as shall be convict- 
ed. If either of these officers shall 
wilfully refuse or neglect to dis- 
charge the duties imposed upon him, 
evidence of the specific instance of 
such refusal or neglect, as contem- 
plated by the act and the constitu- 
tion, may be presented to the Ex- 
ecutive, and i'f he is satisfied that 
the charges are sustained, it will be 
his duty to bring such fact to the at- 
tention of the Legislature at the ear- 
liest practical day, whereupon that 
body may request the removal of the 
delinquent officer. 

"While sueih a remedy as this is 
provided for exceptional cases of de- 
linquency, yet it will rarely be found 
that any of 'these officers will wilfully 
refuse or neglect to do his duty, where 
he is made to feel that the public 
sentiment will sustain him. Where 
this sentiment is not strong enough in 
■a .county either to urge existing offi- 
cers to a faithful discharge of 'their 
duty, or, in case of their neglect, to 
secure the election of .men who will 
do their duty, the ultimate remedy 
must be sought, under our system, 
through such instrumentalities as will 
arouse and elevate public opinion. 

"Valuable and indispensable as is 
the prohibitory system of legislation 
for the repression of drinking houses 
and tippling shops, whose fruits are 
drunkenness, ignorance, brutality, 
waste, pauperism, crime, impaired 
health, shattered intellect, premature 
decay and untimely death, it should 
not be forgotten that the efficiency 
oif law, as well as the power of those 
moral instrumentalities which law 
only supplements depends on the con- 
stancy and energy with which labors 
are directed to maintain a ihigh stand- 
ard of public sentiment on this ques- 



tion. In so glorious a moral work 
as this, every good citizen should 
unite his sympathies and efforts." 



LETTER XXIII. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. WILLIAM FOX. 

AUGUSTA, Jan. 22. (Special Corre- 
spondence.)— Hon. William Fox, ex- 
prime minister of New Zealand, visit- 
ed this Country in 1875, and attended 
the convention of the Right Worthy 
Lodge of Good Templars, and the Na- 
tional Temperance Convention at Chi- 
cago. On his return to London, a 
breakfast was tendered him by the 
United Kingdom Alliance and in an 
address he gave an account of his visit 
to the Maine Law Country, in which 
he said: 

"To sum up the whole, I believe the 
condition of the states of Maine and 
Vermont to be as follows: If the house 
of lords and ■ the house of commons, 
and all the country justices, mayors, 
and aldermen of Great Britain, and a 
small number of the lower classes— 
perhaps 200,000 out of a population of 
28,000,000, drank, and all the rest did 
not, you would have a state of things 
analagous here to what they are in 
Maine and Vermont. You would have 
a very small fraction who would get 
and use liquor, furnishing those shock- 
ing examples which some persons are 
in the habit of parading before us as 
existing in those states, but tL-- whole 
of the rest of the population would be 
sober. The effect on their general 
condition is something marvelous; a 
total abstinence externally at all 
events, of all those vices and crimes 
which you meet with amongst drink- 
ing populations, which is very agreea- 
ble and very surprising. The impres- 
sion left on my mind by my visit to 
these states, was the full confirmation 
of the statements made to you by the 
Hon. General Neal Dow and the docu- 
ments which have been put forth; 
that in Maine and Vermont, on the 
whole, the prohibitory law has been a 
great success, notwithstanding that it 
has been more difficult to carry out be- 
cause of its non-permissive character." 
Interv.-w V/ith British Consul. 

Mr. Fox gives an interesting ac- 
count of his visit to Portland, and a 
call which he made to Mr. Murray, the 
British consul in that City. He says: 

"Having an introduction I went 
down to Mr. MurraV, the British con- 
sul. I found him a most courteous gen- 
tleman. He did his best to give me all 
the information in his power, and, 
finding we had mutual friends, we 
were soon on a footing of considerable 
intimacy. He spoke his mind to me 
without the least reserve, and allowed 
me to argue with, and interrogate him 
to any extent I pleased. I am bound 
to say that I think he entertains very 



strong prejudices upon the question. 
Shakespeare tells us of men who can- 
not endure a harmless, necessary cat; 
now the Maine law seems to be Mr. 
Murray's harmless, necessary cat. He 
alleged as facts all the priori argu- 
ments against it, such as that it nade 
men hypocrites, was one law for the 
rich and another for the poor, etc. But 
when I asked him for facts, he seemed 
to be at a loss to supply them. 

"I called his attention to the statis- 
tics adduced on the other side such as 
those contained in the 'Cloud of Wit- 
nesses,' and other documents, and I 
begged him to tell me whether the 
facts stated by Gen. Neal Dow and 
others, as to the diminution of crime, 
employing of persons, etc., were true 
or not. Mr. Murray candidly admitted 
that they went far to prove the suc- 
cess of the law. Then, said I, will you 
tell me if they are true, or not? Mr. 
Murray admitted that he could not, 
and that he had no evidence to dis- 
prove them, either. The result of our 
interview was to leave the impression 
on my mind, that Mr. Murray was 
much prejudiced on the subject, and 
that he had based his opinions chiefly 
on very limited observations, of the 
exceptional conditions of the large 
seaport town in which he resided." 

Mr. Dingley was re-elected Governor 
in 1874, and in 1875, speaking in his in- 
augural address, about prohibitory law, 
remarked: 

Gov. Dingley's Address. 

"The Attorney General embodies in 
his report communications from the 
several county attorneys, furnishing 
important official statements and sta- 
tistics relating to the enforcement of 
the laws prohibiting drinking-houses 
and tippling-shops. The statistics show 
that during the past year, in the Su- 
preme Court alone, there have been 
276 convictions. 41 commitments to jail 
and $30,898 collected in fines under 
these laws — more of each than in any 
other year, and four times as many 
convictions and ten times as much in 
fines as in 1866, when the general en- 
forcement of these laws was resumed 
after the close of the war, which had 
engrossed the public attention and en- 
ergies. It is significant also that dur- 
ing these nine or ten years of gradu- 
ally increasing efficiency in the en- 
forcement of the laws against dram- 
shops, the number of convicts in the 
State Prison has fallen off more than 
one-fourth. 

"The report of the Attorney General 
and the statistics accompanying, con- 
clusively show that the laws prohibit- 
ing drinking-houses and tippling-shops 
have for the most part been enforced 
during the past year more generally 
and effectively than ever before, and 
with corresponding satisfactory results 
in the diminution of dram-shops and 
intemperance. These results are duo, 



48 



to a considerable extent, to the in- 
creased efficiency given to these laws 
by the sheriff enforcement act, but 
more especially to the improved tem- 
perance sentiment which has been 
created by the active moral efforts put 
forth in this State within a few years. 
Experience has shown that however 
faithful officers may strive to be, their 
permanent success in the enforcement. 
of any laws, and particularly laws op- 
posed by unprincipled avarice and de- 
based appetite, will largely depend on 
the strength and activity of the pub- 
lic sentiment which supports the ob- 
ject they have in view, in the several 
counties and municipalities. It is 
gratifying to know that this senti- 
counties and municipalities. It is 
gratifying to know that this sentiment 
has become so predominant as to se- 
cure the very general suppression of 
known dram-shops, and the conse- 
quent marked mitigation of the evils 
of intemperance in four-fifths of the 
'State. In the remainder of the State, 
comprising some of the larger cities 
and villages, the results are not so 
satisfactory although even there, as 
compared with the condition thirty 
vears since, there has been an im- 
provement. 

"I am happy to bear witness to the 
ddelity and efficiency with which most 
of the sheriffs and county attorneys — 
for the latter officers are as important 
In this work as the former — have la- 
bored to enforce the laws against 
dram-shops, as well as other laws of 
the State, as required by the act of 
1872, and as directed by special orders 
of the Executive. No case has been 
presented to me involving such a 'wil- 
ful refusal or neglect' on the part of 
any officer, as would probably afford 
ground for the Legislature to cite him 
•before that body for trial with a view 
to removal by address; although it has 
seemed to me that on the part of a few 
officers there has been a failure to 
do all in their power to secure the en- 
forcement of the law in their respec- 
tive counties. As sheriffs and county 
attorneys are not appointed or remov- 
able by the Executive — as they for- 
merly were, and as it seems to me 
they should now be, in order to secure 
the highest efficiency in the execution 
of the laws, — but are elected by tha 
people of the several counties, it is of 
the utmost importance that those vo- 
ters who believe that the public in- 
terests will be promoted by a suppres- 
sion of the dram-shops, should en- 
deavor to secure the election of offi- 
cers who will efficiently discharge all 
the duties imposed upon them by law. 
At the same time it should be borne 
in mind that the primary duty of en- 
forcing the laws against dram-shops. 
gambling--houses and houses of ill- 
fame, rests on the officers of municipal- 
ities. It is of the highest importance 
that the large police force which is 
constantly maintained in cities, and 



which can enforce the laws much more 
efficiently than the smaller number of 
local deputy sheriffs, should be held 
by the people of those cities to the 
faithful discharge of the duty which 
the law and ther oath of office impose 
upon them. 

"We should not, however, fall into 
the error of expecting too much of en- 
actments against drinking-houses and 
tippling-shops. Laws prohibiting adul- 
tery, fornication, slander, fraud, gamb- 
ling 1 and Sabbath breaking, have al- 
ways been on our statute book; but no 
one has ever on the one hand de- 
nounced these statutes as a failure, or 
on the other hand concluded that their 
frequent non-enforcement proved offi- 
cial incapacity and dishonesty, be- 
cause adultery, fornication, slander, 
fraud, gambling and Sa-bbath breaking 
still exist. And yet take the State as 
a whole, especially if two of three of 
our larger cities are omitted, and it is 
very questionable whether the laws 
against these crimes are much more 
effectively enforced than the laws 
against tippling-houses. Again, it 
should be remembered that laws 
against dram-shops are only subsidi- 
ary to moral efforts in the promotion 
of temperance, in the rame manner as 
laws prohibiting gambling-places and 
houses of ill-fame are supplementary 
to moral inculcations in the promo- 
tion of virtue. Law will accomplish 
but little alone; but sustained and ap- 
plied by a public sentiment which 
brings vividly home to a large majori- 
ty of citizens the magnitude of the 
evils of intemperance, it has proved in 
this State to be an important and in- 
dispensable adjunct in the promotion 
of temperance. 



LETTER XXIV. 

PEOPLE ENDORSE PROHIBITION 
AGAIN IN 1875. 

AUGUSTA Jan. 23.— (Special Cor- 
respondence.)— In the campaign of 1875 
the liquor question again was 
brought prominently before the peo- 
ple. Neither of the great political 
parties had made this a paramount 
issue for some time previous. The 
Democrats at that time did not op- 
pose prohibition in their party plat- 
forms and it was generally under- 
stood that a majority of that party 
was in favor of prohibition. Some of 
the leaders endeavored to make the 
liquor question an issue during this 
period of quiescence, but attempts to 
pass resolutions opposed to sumptuary 
laws were fruitless. 

In 1875 the Democrats held their 
State convention in Augusta, It was 
well attended. There were two can- 
didates for the nomination for Gov- 
ernor. Gen. Charles W. Roberts of 
Bangor and John C. Talbot. Gen 
Roberts wan the nomination ' by a 



41) 



vote of 462 to 620. In this convention 
James F. Rawson of Bangor was 
prominent as a delegate. It was well 
known that he was strongly opposed 
to the prohibitory policy, and was one 
of the men who was anxious to have 
the Democratic party take a decided 
position against the sumptuary laws. 
He went to this convention with an 
anti-prohibitory resolution in his 
pocket, intending to present it. But 
h e stated in a speech in the conven- 
tion that he had been prevailed upon 
not to do this. 

At that time the Democratic party 
was led by two brilliant men, Mar- 
cellus Emery of Bangor, for many 
years an editor of a weekly Democrat- 
ic paper, and the founder of the Ban- 
gor Commercial. He was graduated 
at Bowdoin College, and, after grad- 
uation, went South to teach, where 
he gradually absorbed the Southern 
principles, and during the war be- 
came known for his strong anti-war 
sentiments. He was an able, scholarly 
man; and, although the majority of 
the people differed with his political 
principles, he was respected through- 
out the State for his honesty of pur- 
pose and purity of life. He was the 
recognized leader of the Democracy 
in the Eastern part of the State. The 
other leader was Eben F. Pillsbury 
of Augusta, a lawyer of recognized 
ability, and an orator almost unsur- 
passed in New England. Mr. Emery 
opposed prohibition. Mr. iPOlsbuiry 
may not have been in sympathy with 
the prohibitory principles, but, as a 
matter of party policy, did not be- 
lieve it best to take that stand. Al- 
though the Democrats failed to pass 
an anti-prohibitory resolution in the 
convention, Gen. Roberts in his 
speech of acceptance made later in 
Bangor, made the issue prominent, 
and at once the question came to the 
foreground in the State once again, 
and attracted the attention of the 
entire Country very soon. In this 
speech of Gen. Roberts, which was 
quoted again and again during the 
campaign, the general, among other 
things, said: 

"And here, lest I might be mis- 
quoted, I will say that the Prohibi- 
tory Law, that bone of contention so 
long upon our statute books, I never 
favored,, I never shall: I believe it to 
be revolutionary in spirit, a clog to 
the wheels of business demoralizing 
to the cause of true temperance which 
it proclaims to advance, and which 
I shall openly oppose." 

This speech at once stirred upa great 
furore throughout the state. Solon- 
Chase, at that time the editor of 
"Chase's Chronicle," and a delegate to 
the convention which nominated Gen- 
eral Roberts, was a prohibitionist, and 
disliked the position, which his candi- 
dates had assumed upon this question. 
In his paper he asked, "What business 
does the Maine lav- clog, except the 



rum business?" The Portland Argus 
openly took the same position as did 
General Roberts, and said that it had 
never been a believer in the Maine law, 
and that license would furnish a sub- 
stantial revenue to the State. 

The Republicans. 

The Republicans in their convention 
that year took a position favorable to 
temperance and prohibition, and 
passed the following resolution: 

"Temperance, among the people, may 
be wisely promoted by prohibitory 
legislation, and it is a source of con- 
gratulation that the policy of prohiK 
tion, always upheld by the Republi- 
cans of Maine, is now concurred in by 
a vast majority of the people of the 
State." H. A. Shorey of Bridgton was 
the Cumberland county member upon 
resolutions at that convention. 

The Republicans throughout that 
campaign took the position that there 
should be prohibition by law of the 
sale of intoxicating liquors, and that 
the law should be enforced. General 
Roberts was an extremely popular 
man, who had served in the Civil War, 
and was one of the strongest candi- 
dates who could have been advanced, 
owing to his wide acquaintanceship 
through the State. He was always 
honored by his party, and under Pres- 
ident Cleveland, was appointed collec- 
tor of customs at Bangor. 

He was opposed by General Selden 
Connor, in this campaign of 1875, he 
being the Republican nominee for Gov- 
ernor. Although the prohibitory ques- 
tion was prominent, many other issues 
were brought into the campaign. The 
Republicans had long been in power in 
the State, and there was the usual dis- 
satisfaction in the ranks over matters 
which might be termed purely person- 
al, and it was at a time when the Na- 
tional Democracy was gaining ascend- 
ency throughout the Country. The 
Greenback party was also just making 
its appearance in National affairs. The 
total vote that year in Maine was 111,- 
665; General Connor had 57,812, Gen. 
Roberts 53,807, and there were 46 scat- 
tering votes. Gen. Connor's plurality 
being only 3,962, the smallest Republi- 
can victory which had been won since 
1862, when the Republicans carried the 
state by 3370. In this election the Re- 
publicans increased their vote about 
7000 over that of the previous election, 
and the Democrats gained about 13,000. 
The total vote being 16,365 greater than 
it was in 1874. 

In this election the Democrats made 
an unusual exertion and carried on a 
"still hunt" campaign. The Republi- 
cans relied upon their majorities of 
previous years, and were not as active 
as they might have been. The result 
was that the Democrats claimed they 
had won practically a victory, by cut- 
ting down the plurality to such a low 
figure. 



50 



Governor Connor. 

In his inaugural address in 1876, touch- 
ing upon the prohibitory question, Gov. 
Connor said: 

"I have no official information to 
present to vou with regard to the 
workings of the law prohibiting the 
sale of intoxicating liquors. It is a 
matter of common knowledge that they 
have been very generally enforced, es- 
pecially in the cities and large towns, 
where the traffic is most persistently 
attempted to be carried on in defiance 
of them. The law as a whole fairly 
represents the sentiment of the people. 
The opposition to it presents in appear- 
ance a strength which it does not in 
reality possess. 

"The opponents who are entitled to a 
hearing, are the good citizens, the in- 
telligent, thoughtful men, conservative 
by nature, who sincerely deprecate the 
evils caused by the sale of liquors, and 
yet are so tenacious of private rights 
that they cannot yield to the para- 
mount claims of public order and eco- 
nomy. The loudest and most aggres- 
sive portion of the opposition are not 
entitled to a hearing in the court of 
reason, since the only arguments they 
regard are those of self-interest. 

"Maine has a fixed conclusion upon 
this subject. It is that the sale of in- 
toxicating liquors is an evil of such 
magnitude that the well-being of the 
State demands, and the conditions of 
the social compact warrant, its sup- 
pression. Hostility to the great wrong 
does not find expression solely in the 
law, but also in the great Reform 
movement, whose persuasive power has 
been so beneficially exercised through- 
out our communities." 

In the election of 1876 National poli- 
tics predominated. It was in that 
year that the Democrats throughout 
the Country made the greatest effort 
they had exerted in many years, with 
Samuel Tilden as their candidate for 
the Presidency. Governor Connor was 
renominated and the Democrats nomi- 
nated John C. Talbot. For the first 
time the Greenback party appeared in 
CMaine politics, Almon Gage of Lewis- 
ton being their candidate for Govern- 
or. The total vote was 136,823, of 
which Governor Connor had 75,867, Mr. 
Talbot, 60,423; Mr. Gage, 520; scatter- 
ing, 13. Governor Connor's plurality 
was 15,117. In his inaugural in 1877, 
Governor Connor had nothing to say 
upon the question of prohibition. 

In 1877 Governor Connor was again 
re-nominated; the Democrats nomi- 
nated Joseph H. "Williams, and the 
Greenbackers, Henry C. Munson. The 
total vote dropped to 102,058; of this 
53,585 votes went to Governor Connor, 
42,247 votes were thrown for Joseph 
H. Williams, 64 for Joseph Williams, 
3,770 for H. C. Munson. Henry C. 
Munson was given 1,521, John C. Tal- 
bot, 736; J. C. Talbot, 11, and scatter- 



ing, 124. Other questions had been 
so prominent during the campaign 
that the prohibition matter dropped 
back out of sight, and Governor Con- 
nor did not consider it necessary to 
make any allusions to it. 

In 1878 Governor Connor was again 
put forward by the Republicans, 
Alonzo Garcelon of Lewiston was 
nominated by the Democrats, and the 
National Greenback party nominated 
Joseph L. Smith of Old Town. The 
one great issue in this campaign was 
that raised bv the Greenback party. 
In a total vote of 126,169, Governor 
Connor received 56,554, Mr. Garcelon, 
28,208; Mr. Smith, 41,371; scattering, 
36. At that time it was necessary 
for candidate to receive a majority of 
the votes cast, and as none of the 
candidates received that number, the 
election of Governor devolved upon 
the Legislature, and Alonzo Garcelon 
was elected. 

Dr. Garcelon's message was brief, 
and made no comment upon the mat- 
ter of prohibition. 

In 1879. 

In 1879 the Republicans nominated 
Daniel F. Davis of Corinth. Joseph 
L. Smith was again nominated by the 
Greenbackers, and Alonzo Garcelon 
was the standard bearer of the Dem- 
ocrats. The total vote was 136,806, 
Mr. Davis having 68,967; Mr. Smith, 
47,643; Alonzo Garcelon, 21,851, and 
Bion Bradbury, 264; Scattering, 81. 

In this election the Democrats and 
Greenbackers, although making sepa- 
rate nominations for Governor, united 
in appointing "Fusion" nominees, for 
most of the State and county officers. 
This was the year when the "count- 
out" caused such a disturbance in the 
State, and there was no legal organi- 
zation of the Legislature until seven 
days after the usual time for the 
Legislature to convene. Before the 
questions involved were settled the 
Supreme Court was appealed to, and 
gave their famous opinions of Janu- 
ary 3, January 16 and January 27, 1880. 
The people had made no choice for 
Governor, and the Legislature elected 
Daniel F. Davis. In his inaugural 
in 1880, Governor Davis upon the mat- 
ter of prohibition, said: 

"All agree that intemperance is one 
of the worst evils that can afflict a 
people. The way to eradicate it is a 
question that should address itself to 
all classes. The women's temperance 
movement, the reform clubs and the 
other temperance organizations have 
accomplished a great and lasting 
work. Like all other evils intemp- 
erance will succumb, at least in part, 
to true moral force, well directed. It 
is to be regretted, however, that there 
are those whom moral forces will not 
reach. To restrain this class, pro- 
hibitory laws have been found neces- 
sary. The principle of prohibition has 



51 



been so long the settled policy of the 
■State, and has been found so useful 
and effective in suppressing the liq- 
uor traffic, that no party or class of 
men now dare to assail it. A proper 
and vigorous enforcement of the law 
upon this subject is reasonably de- 
manded by the friends of temperance. 
None of the agencies which can be 
invoked for the suppression of in- 
temperance should be impaired." 



LETTER XXV* 

LEGISLATIVE REPORT IN 1880. 

AUGUSTA, Jan. 25.— (Special Cor- 
respondence.) — A report to the Legis- 
lature was made in 1880, by the com- 
mittee on temperance and Prohibitory 
Laws, who were F. G. Lamson, Rich- 
mond; G. R. Fernald, Wilton; A. R. 
Crane, East Winthrop; G. C. Goss, 
Auburn; W. Hills, Union; E. Jewett, 
( .Sangerville; L. S. Heal, Westport; J. 
D. Baker, Orrington. The commit- 
tee made report as follows: 

"The law restricting the sale of in- 
toxicating liquors, commonly called 
the Prohibitory Law, has been in op- 
eration in this State in some of its 
modified forms more than a quarter 
of a century. The people of the 
Slate have had ample opportunity to 
observe its workings, to judge of its 
efficiency in restricting the sale of 
liquors, and in suppressing the vice of 
intemperance. A large majority of 
the citizens of Maine, we are confi- 
dent, believe that it is a righteous 
law, and that it has proved an effec- 
tive agency in shutting up liquor 
shops and restricting the sale and use 
of intoxicating liquors." 

"The principle of prohibition," says 
Governor Davis in his message, and 
we fully endorse the statement, "has 
been so long the settled policy of the 
State, and has been found so useful 
and effective in suppressing the liquor 
traffic, that no party or class of men 
now dare to assail it..' 

"While relying mainly upon moral 
forces to reform inebriates, and to 
train the youth of our State to tem- 
perate and virtuous habits, the friends 
of temperance desire and reasonably 
demand that the law shall be vigor- 
ously enforced against those who, in 
defiance of public sentiment and the 
appeals of suffering, persist in selling 
intoxicating liquors. 

"The assertion sometimes made 
that the Prohibitory Law has not di- 
minished the consumption of liquor, 
but simply changed the manner of 
selling it, is not supported by the tes- 
timony of those who appeared before 



your committee. It is not denied that 
the suppression of public drinking 
places, has caused those engaged in 
the traffic to resort to a variety of 
methods for the purpose of evading 
the law, and has multiplied club rooms 
and other places of resort, where liq- 
uor is secretly sold, but there is no 
evidence to support the statement that 
the secret sale of liquor has increased 
in the same ratio that its public sale 
has decreased. In fact, the testimony 
of those who appeared before the com- 
mittee showed conclusively that where 
the law has been vigorously enforced 
it has largely suppressed the private 
as well as the public sale. Any fail- 
ure to accomplish this is due more to 
the negligence of officers than to the 
defects of the law. 

"The objection made by some 
against the law on account of the ex- 
pense of enforcing it, is not deemed 
valid. The enforcement of all laws 
for the protection of society is expen- 
sive, but this is not regarded as a suf- 
ficient reason for not enforcing them. 
No one would argue that a person 
guilty of crime against society should 
be allowed to escape the penalty of 
the law because it would cost some- 
thing to arrest and convict him. And 
surely the expense of enforcing the 
law for the suppression of the liquor 
traffic, the most fruitful cause of 
crime, poverty and wretchedness, is 
not a sufficient reason for neglecting 
to enforce it. A due regard to 
economy requires a rigid enforcement 
of the law, for it would compel of- 
fenders to pay large sums into the 
treasury of the State as well as di- 
minish crime and pauperism. 

"The law is in the main satisfactory. 
Your committee does not recommend 
any radical changes. A few amend- 
ments are proposed, chiefly for the 
purpose of securing a more faithful en- 
forcement. These amendments are 
recommended in response to a large 
number of petitioners from all parts 
of the State." 

Changes in Statutes. 

The Legislature that year made some 
important changes in the statutes, in 
relation to common nuisances, and the 
sale of intoxicating liquors. Among 
other changes "all places used as 
houses of ill fame" resorted to for 
lewdness or gambling, for the illegal 
sale of intoxicating liquors, and all 
places of resort where intoxicating li- 
quors are kept, sold, given away, 
drank, or dispensed in any manner not 
provided for by law," were made com- 



rnon niusances. "Wine, ale, porter, 
strong beer, lager beer, and all other 
malt liquors and cider, when kept or 
deposited with intent to sell, for tip- 
pling- purposes or as a beverage, as 
well as all other distilled spirits," were 
to be considered intoxicating, within 
the meaning of the law. The provis- 
ions of the law were not to extend to 
the "manufacture and sale of unadul- 
terated cider in any case when sold in 
quantities of Ave gallons or upward, 
delivered or taken away at one time, 
nor to wine made from fruit grown In 
this State, nor to the sale by agents 
appointed under the provisions of thi.s 
chapter, or pure wines for sacramental 
and medicinal uses." 

An important innovation was made. 
When 30 or more well known taxpay- 
ers in any county petitioned and rep- 
resented that the prohibitory liquor 
laws were not faithfully enforced by 
county and local officer^, it was made 
the duty of the Governor and Council 
to enquire into such representation, 
and if in their judgment such repre- 
sentations were well founded, the 
Governor, by and with consent of the 
Council, should appoint two or more 
constables for such county, whose du- 
ty it should be to diligently enforce 
the provisions of the law. These con- 
stables were to have the powers and 
duties of sheriffs and deputies, and to 
have the same compensation as was 
provided for sheriffs and deputies. It 
"was also made the duty of the Govern- 
or if complaint was made that a coun- 
ty attorney wilfully refused or ne- 
glected to discharge the duties of his 
office in enforcing' the Prohibitory 
laws, to remove such an attorney from 
office and to fill his place by appoint- 
ment. 

The penalties for violating the Pro- 
hibitory laws were also increased, by 
imposing more fines, and longer im- 
prisonments. 

Four candidates for the Governor's 
office appeared in the field in 1880. The 
Democrats and Greenbackers united 
under the name of "Fusion," and nom- 
inated Harris M. Plaisted, who had 
been prominent in the State in former 
years, in the Republican ranks, having 
■held the office of attorney general, 
been a member of the State Legisla- 
ture, and also served as congressman 
for that party. The Republicans re- 
nominated Governor Davis. The so- 
called "Temperance Party" nominated 
Joshua Nye, and for the first time the 
National Prohibitory party appeared 
in Maine politics. This party was or- 



ganized in 1869, and in 1876 an unsuc- 
cessful attempt was made to form an 
organization in Maine. In 1880 a con- 
vention was held in Ellsworth, and 
William P. Joy was nominated as their 
candidate for Governor. Another con- 
vention of temperance men was held 
in Portland and J. K. Osgood was 
nominated as candidate for Governor. 
He declined to serve, and Joshua Nye 
was put in his place. This organiza- 
tion was discontinued after the elec- 
tion of this year. 

The vote this year was a phenome- 
nal one, the total being 147,802. Mr. 
Plaisted receiving 73,713, Mr. Davis, 
73,544, Mr. Nye, 309, Mr. Joy, 124 and 
scattering, 112. Mr. Plaisted was 
elected, but his inaugural address in 
1881 made no allusion to Prohibition. 



LETTER XXVI. 

CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION. 

AUGUSTA, Jan. 26.— The Fusionists 
renominated Governor Plaisted in 1882 
and he was opposed by Frederick Ro- 
bie, the Republican candidate. The 
Greenbackers who were dissatisfied 
with the Fusion party nominated So- 
lon Chase, the Independent Republi- 
cans put up Warren H. Vinton, and 
the Prohibitionists, William T. Eustis. 
Mr. Robie was elected, receiving 72.- 
481 votes, 63,921 being cast for Govern- 
or PRisted, Solon Chase receiving 
1,324, Mr. Vinton 269, Eustis 381, and 
scattering, 102. 

At this time Prohibition had taken 
such a strong hold upon the people of 
the b ate that the question of placing 
Prohibition in the Constitution was 
agitated. In 1882 the Republicans in 
their resolutions had re-affirmed their 
faith in Prohibition, and made a rec- 
ommendation that it was time to give 
the people the chance to express their 
opinion at the polls, on the advisabil- 
ity of making Prohibition a part of 
the Constitution as had already been 
done by Kansas c id Iowa. 
Governor Robie'. 
In his message to the Legislature, in 
1883, Governor Robie in touching upon 
the topic Temperance and Prohibition, 
said- "Temperance has been for many 
years one of the leading public ques- 
tions and has enlisted the service of 
many of the best men and ^ omen of 
our State. Prohibition had been prom- 
inent in the politics of the State, and, 
after an active agitation through many 
years thj Maine Daw was adopted m 
1851. The evidence is unmistakable that 
a majority of our people favor the pol- 



53 



icy of Prohibition, and there are few 
localities which do not favor a wise 
and impartial enforcement of all law 
relating thereto. There has undoubt- 
edly been a difference of opinion among 
good and conscientions citizens in re- 
gard to the best mode of eradicating 
intermperance, but there are few who 
are unwilling to admit that there has 
been a wonderful change for the .better 
in public sentiment where the law has 
been rigidly enforced. In a large part 
of the State, embracing more than 
three-fourths of our population, the li- 
quor traffic is practically unknown. It 
lingers on a small scale, and more or 
less secretly, in our larger towns and 
cities, producing in them the evils 
which inevitably arise from it wher- 
ever it exists. 

"The successful party at the recent 
election affirmed the principles of 
Prohibition in its resolutions, and also 
recommended that the people of our 
State be allowed the opportunity of ex- 
pressing an opinion at the polls, on a 
constitutional amendment, which, if 
adopted, will make Prohibition a part 
of the organic law of the State. Kan- 
sas and Iowa, by a vote of the people, 
have incorporated Prohibition into 
their respective constitutions, and a 
very active agitation is now in prog- 
ress in many other states to the same 
end. The right of the people to deter- 
mine for themselves what is most con- 
ducive to their interests, is in accord 
with the theory of popular govern- 
ment. 

"Furthermore, constitutional Prohi- 
bition would have the effect of keep- 
ing the question, to a considerable ex- 
tent, if not entirely, out of party poli- 
tics. In view of these facts, the Legis- 
lature will be called upon by petition 
and otherwise, as it has already been 
asked by the voice of the sovereign 
people, to submit to them the deter- 
mination of this question. It is your 
province to consider this request, and 
whatever may be the final result, let 
the voice of the people be the law of 
the land." 

On Jan. 9, 1883, Eaton of Camden 
presented a resolve, entitled: 

"Resolve: Providing for an amend- 
ment of the Constitution forever pro- 
hibiting the manufacture of intoxicat- 
ing liquors, and prohibiting their sale 
except for medicinal and mechanical 
purposes, and the arts." 

On Jan. 12, the resolve was referred 
to the committee oh judiciary. On 
Feb. 6 the resolve was taken from the 
table, and on motion of Mr. Meader 
the following amendment was offered: 
"To strike out the words 'not includ- 
ing cider,' so that the clause should 
read as follows: The manufacture of 
intoxicating liquors and the sale of, 
and keeping for sale of, intoxicating 
liquors, are and shall be forever pro- 



hibited." A vote on this amendment 
was taken on Feb. 8 and was lost by 
a vote of 56 to 84. On the same day 
the resolve was put upon its final pas- 
sage, and was carried by a vote of 104 
to 37. The vote was as follows. 

The Vote. 

Those who voted yea were Messrs. 
David Allen, Chesterville; James W. 
Ambrose, Sherman; Daniel W. Ames, 
Portland; John S. Ayer, Palermo; Ed- 
win C. Barrows, Vassalboro; Henry 
M. Bearce, Norway; Alden Blossom, 
Boothbay; James W. Bolton, French- 
vilie; Joseph Bur land, Lincoln; Ed- 
ward H. Carleton, Woolwich; John E. 
Case, Rockland; David Chamberlain, 
Bristol; Charles P. Chapman, Orring- 
ton; James B. Chase, Litchfield; Jona- 
than A. Chase, Sebec; Sanford Chick, 
Plymouth; William M. Cook, Casco; 
H. W. Copeland, Turner; John D. 
Crimmin, Eastbrook; James T. Cush- 
man, Ellsworth; Alexis Cyr, Grand 
Isle; Isaac N. Dearing, Waterboro; 
William Dobson, Pittsfield; Moses J. 
Donnell, Pittston; Orrin J. Doyen, Ab- 
bot; Jesse Drew, Fort Fairfield; Jo- 
seph Dunnell, Westbrook; Hosea B. 
Eaton, Camden; George A. Emery, 
Saco; Charles D. Fail, Lebanon; Eben 
P. Files, Detroit; Daniel J. Fisher, 
Charlotte; Hiram H. Fogg, Bangor; 
William G. Foster, Clinton; William 
Freeman, Cherryfield; Frank Gilman, 
Winn; Pascal P. Gilmore, Oldham; 
Edward C. Goodnow, Calais; S. H. 
Goodwin. St. Albans; Clarence Hale, 
Portland; Oliver G. Hall, Rockland; 
John Hall, Alfred; Thomas W. Ham, 
Wales; Herbert M. Heath, Augusta; 
Benjamin J. Hill, Auburn; F. O. J. S. 
Hill, Newburg; Stephen Hinkley, Gor- 
ham; Daniel W. Hiscock, Alna; Joel 
W. Hobart; Cornville; Elisha T. Hol- 
brook, Vanceboro; Orrin A. Horr, Lew- 
iston; N. F. Houston, Belfast; A. H. 
Houston, Bradford; Charles E. Hub- 
bard, Hiram; Alfred E. Ives, Castine; 
John H. Jameson, Waldoboro; Elijah 
D. Jepson, China; Alfred F. Johnson, 
Wayne; John C. Kendall, Freeport; 
Charles M. Kimball, Bethel; George F. 
Knapp, Bridgcon; Henry J. Lane, 
Raymond; Arthur B. Latham, Au- 
burn; Daniel C. Leavitt, Phillips; 
S. S. Leighton, Columbia; Edmund R. 
Luce, New Vineyard; Charles P. Mat- 
tocks, Portland; Charles B. Mclntire, 
Solon; Charles S. Newell, Lewiston; 
Aaron Noyes, White field; S. A. 
Nye, Fairfield; Thomas H. Phair, 
Presque Isle; Roscoe D. Y. Phi lb rook, 
Webster; Charles H. Prescott, Bidde- 
ford; Charles N. Rand, Parkiman; 
John G. Reed, Brookline; Francis A. 
Robinson, Readfield; S. A. Rodick, 
Eden; O'rville S. Sanborn, Standish; 
George L. Shaw, Yarmouth; D. M. 
Shapleigh, Kittery; W. S. Small, 
Limington; William Smith, Stockton; 



54 



John M. Smith, Robbinston; Charles 
L. Smith, Jonesboro; Lewis Simpson, 
Milford; Albert M. Spear, Hallo well; 
Robert D. Spear, Bowdoinham; 
Parker Spofford, Bucksport; Solomon 
F. Etetson, Sumner; George W. 
Stone, Jay; Elliot C. Stratton, Han- 
cock; Daniel Strout, Cape Elizabeth; 
Ephraim D. Tasker, Jackman; 
Benjain B. Thatcher, Bangor; Elias 
Thomas, Portland; G. L. Tracy, Ox- 
ford; Eben Webster, Orono; Moses 
Went worth, North Berwick; Wallace 
H. White, Lewiston; John M. White, 
Windham; Solon White, Richmond; 
George A. Wilson, Paris; George W. 
Young, Line olnvi lie— 104. 

Those who voted nay were Messrs. 
Charles E. Allen, Dresden; Stephen 
S. Bartlett, Washington; Anthony 
Brackett, Starks; John S. Briggs, Po- 
land ; A. A. Brown, Liberty; Edward 
S. Bucklin, Warren; S. A. Dinsmore, 
Bingham; John B. Donovan, Bidde- 
ford; G. H. Fox, Lowell; George F. 
Goodwin, 'South Berwick; Charles 
Hamlin, Bangor; C. P. Harmon, Hol- 
lis; Charles P. Haskell, New Glouces- 
ter; Barak A. Hatch, Morrill; Francis 
C. Hathorn, Cushing; George B. 
Leavitt, Deering; John J. Dinscott, 
Farmington; James T. Matthews, 
Cutler; Nathaniel Meader, Water- 
ville; George H. Milliken, Cornish; 
Joseph E. Moore, Thomaston; 

Charles E. Perkins, Kennebunkport; 
Charles E. Phillips, Hermon, Hay- 
wood Pierce, Frankfort;. M. V. B. 
Piper, Kenduskeag; Llewellyn Pow- 
ers, Houlton; William Rogers, 3ath; 
Joseph L. Smith, Old Town; Levi W. 
Smith, Vinal Haven; Benjamin L. 
Simpson, Hampden; Charles A. Spof- 
ford, Deer Isle; Lamont A. Stevens, 
Wells; John C. Talbot, East Machias; 
Frederick W. Talbot, Falmouth; 
Weston Thompson, Brunswick; Al- 
bert F. Trufant, Harps well; Lorin B. 
Ward, Sidney— 37. 

The resolve was introduced into the 
Senate, on Jan. 15. On Feb. 20 it came 
up for a vote in the Senate, when 
those who voted in the affirmative, 
were: Bragdon. Clark, Coffin, Heath, 
Hume. Lebrohe, Marble, Maxwell, Mc- 
Lr.ughlin, Nutting, Parkhurst, Pennell, 
Roak, Smith, Stubhs, Tabor, Weeks, 
Wentworth, Weymouth, Wilson, 

Young. Total— 21. 

Messrs. Gushee and Kimball were 
the only ones voting in the negative. 

This resolve, which is known as 
Amendment 5, reads: 

"The manufacture of intoxicating 
liquors, not including cider, and the 
sale and keeping for sale of intoxicat- 
ing liquors, are and shall be forever 
prohibited. Except, however, that the 
sale and keeping for sale of such 
liquors for medicinal and mechanical 
purposes and the arts, and the sale 
and keeping for sale of cider, may be 
permitted under such regulations as 
the Legislature may provide. The 



Legislature shall enact laws with suit- 
able penalties, for the suppression of 
the manufacture, sale and keeping for 
sale of intoxicating liquors, with the 
exceptions herein specified." 

Time passes so rapidly that few 
realize that it has been over a quarter 
of a century since the Maine Legisla- 
ture passed this resolve. It was 
adopted in the election of 1884, after a 
campaign which was more than usual- 
ly filled with exciting and notable in- 
cidents. It was during the Presiden- 
tial election, when James G. Blaine 
was the Republican candidate, and 
Grover Cleveland the candidate of the 
Democrats. The people of the State 
generally took a great interest in the 
question of the adoption or rejection of 
this amendment, and the women, 
through organized efforts, had a prom- 
inent part. 

On the day of the election, in many 
places, they were at the polls, and 
furnished refreshments for the voters, 
also exhorting them to vote in favor of 
the amendment. 

The vote on the amendment was an 
unusually large one, there being 70,783 
votes for its adoption, and 23811 
against it. The total vote, therefore 
was 94,594. The total vote for Gover- 
nor that year, was 143,107. 

The vote on the amendment, by 
counties, was as follows: 
County. Yes. No. 

Androscoggin 4.436 9 408 

Aroostook 3,863 '773 

Cumberland 9.247 3 856 

Fr anklin 2,571 '623 

Han cock 3,047 803 

Kennebec 7,168 . 2 175 

K. n ox 3,049 '755 

^T ^ 2 ' 481 536 

g xford 4,032 1,698 

Penobscot 7,280 3 038 

Piscataquis 2,212 '356 

Sagadahoc 3,385 741 

Street 3>991 

w aldo 3,342 x 02g 

Washington 3,555 '749 

York 7,108 2,700 

70-783 23,811 
The following cities and towns vot-d 
as follows: 

Biddeford 961 904 

Saco 783 32S 

Eastport 190 46 

Maohias ,. 288 ir 

g el f ast 728 105 

Bath 920 iU 

Bangor ijig 2 146 

Brewer 379 ' 46 

Old Town 330 15i 

Augusta 936 534 

Hallowell 445 85 

Gardiner 552 281 

Waterville 563 238 

Ellsworth 429 151 

Portland 2.948 2 887 

Westbrook 614 199 

Brunswick 504 4g 



Deering 518 145 

Houlton 278 87 

Presque Isle 348 56 

Auburn 1,225 264 

Lewiston 1,120 1,485 

26,837 9,514 

These 22 cities and towns gave a vote 
of 26,837 for the adoption and 9,544 for 
the rejection, a majority of 17,293. 
Lewiston was the only one in the num- 
ber that voted in favor of the license 
system. Some of the smaller towns did 
not give a single vote for the rejection 
of the amendment, and many a very 
small number. 

It will be noticed that Bangor, which 
at times has received undesirable and 
perhaps unjust notoriety because of 
the alleged sentiment of its people in 
favor of license, gave a decided ma- 
jority for the adoption of the amend- 
ment. It is only just to say that, 
even in the earliest times, there was 
a strong sentiment in Bangor in favor 
of temperance and Prihibition. On 
January 19, 1843, a larsre mass meeting 
was held in City Hall, ui Bangor, and 
the following resolution was passed: 
"Resolved, That it is expedient that a 
committee be appointed to address a 
'Circular to each trafficker in intoxicat- 
ing drinks in this city, presentng in 
this same the various motives which 
should lead him to abandon the traf- 
fic." 

This committee consisted of Rev. 
John West, Edward Kent, Dr. J. 
Deane, Rev. S. B. Pomeroy, C. K. Mil- 
ler, Isaiah Stetson, A. Drummond, Rev. 
F. K. Hedge, Benj. Swett, N. D. Wig- 
gin, H. G. Cushing, Henry Call. Henry 
Little was chairman of the committee, 
and Joseph S. Wheelwright, the sec- 
retary. This committee addressed a 
strong circular, as they had been in- 
structed. In this same year a great 
temperance conference was held in 
Bangor, and one of the resolutions 
adopted was, 

"That in view of the light which had 
been shed upon the nature and effects 
of intoxicating drinks, now in common 
use, this community can no longer re- 
gard the traffic in this article in any 
other aspect than one of immorality." 

After the passage of the Maine Law, 
in 1851, some of the citizens of Bangor 
sent General Dow in recognition of his 
labors in securing the passage of the 
law, a beautiful silver pitcher, one 
side officers of the law were repre- 
sented executing penalties upon casks 
of liquor, by pouring their contents 
upon the ground; in the background 
was a tenantless jail, and in the dis- 
tance, prosperous commerce is repre- 
sented by a ship in full sail. On the 
other side of the pitcher is a rural 
scene, a cottage embowered in a grove 
of trees, with a fountain spouting 
waters in front. It was inscribed as 
follows: 



"Presented to 

Neal Dow Esq., 

Mayor of Portland. 

By a Few 

Of The 

Friends of Temperance in Bangor, as 

a Small Token of 
Their Regard for His Valuable Services 

in 

Procuring the Passage of the Law of 

1851 

for the 

Suppression of 'Drinking Houses and 

Tippling Shops.' " 



LETTER XXVIL 

GOVERNOR ROBIE'S ADDRESS. 

AUGUSTA, Jan. 27.— (Special Cor- 
respondence.) — Governor Frederick Ro- 
bie, in his address to the Legislature 
in 1885, made mention of the passage 
of the Constitutional amendment, and 
spoke at length of the matter of tem- 
perance and prohibition, as follows: 

"By a resolve of the last Legisla- 
ture, an amendment to the constitu- 
tion of the State, so as to make the 
sale of intoxicating liquors forever 
prohibited by the provisions of that 
instrument, was submitted to the vot- 
ers of Maine, at the election last Sep- 
tember, and the return of 70,783 votes 
for its adoption, and 23,811 votes 
against it, indicates an emphatic dec- 
laration on the part of the people in 
favor of prohibition. That amend- 
ment became part of the constitution 
on the first Wednesday of the present 
month. The constant agitation cf the 
subject of temperance has created a 
firm adherence of the people, of our 
State to the principles of prohibition. 
1 am able to say that during the past 
year there have been 818 prosecutions 
for violating the liquor law and 163 
prosecutions for maintaining nui- 
sances, making a total of 981 cases, 
against an average of 588 for the past 
six years. And this increased num- 
ber of prosecutions has had a good in- 
fluence upon the amount of other 
crime in the State. Our example has 
been potent in the promotion of tem- 
perance reform in other states, and 
the 'Maine law,' which in earlier times 
was looked upon as premature, or too 
progressive legislation, is now point- 
ed to with pride by the faithful advo- 
cates of temperance, not only at home 
but in foreign countries. Its claim 
for public support rested upon its 
good effects in our own State and 
wherever else it had been adopted. The 
value of the Prohibitory Law has been 
shown by the restrictions imposed 



56 



upon the sale of intoxicating liquors 
throughout the State. Statistics fur- 
nish us with conclusive evidence that 
far less intoxication and its fruitful 
evil consequences exist, than were seen 
in earlier periods. 

In no city or town in our State does 
one see the open advertisements of the 
bar room inviting the young, as well 
as the old, to indulge in a habit so de- 
grading as the habitual use of intoxi- 
cating liquors. Criminal statistics 
show that the law has been beneficial in 
restraining crime, and the number of 
indictments found against the violators 
of the law in all of our courts, and the 
fines and costs, or sentences of im- 
prisonment imposed, prove the general 
willingness of the people to assist in 
its enforcement. The present Prohib- 
itory Law is the growth of over thirty 
years, the original law of 1851 having 
been followed by thirty-nine statutes 
in reference to intoxication and the 
sale of intoxicating liquors. The pres- 
ent law may, therefore, be considered 
sufficient to cover all violations of its 
provisions that can possibly occur, and 
its weakness seems to be in its non-en- 
forcement by those officers whose duty 
it is to execute the laws of the State. 
The laws of the State are well defined 
and emphatic and should compel of- 
ficers, not only by a sense of duty and 
honor, but by the religious regard for a 
sacred oath to specially enforce the 
provisions of the prohibitory statute. 
In a very few localities, its general en- 
forcement is disregarded. Special 
provisions have been incorporated into 
the law to remedy this negligence on 
the part of county and municipal offi- 
cers, and the Governor and Council 
have frequently been called upon to, 
appoint special constables to enforce it. 
In some cases such officers have been 
appointed, and always when needed and 
practicable. While I would not rec- 
ommend the repeal of that portion of 
the law, I have failed to see its good 
effects even when an opportunity has 
been given to test it. An appointment 
of this kind brings with it an implied 
unpleasant censure and reprimand, not 
only to the officers, but to the citizens 
of the locality thus temporarily placed 
under the guardianship of the State. 
This is considered so offensive that 
county and municipal officers and citi- 
zens are too apt to fall back into inac- 
tivity and leave the State constable, 
single-handed, to execute the law. 
Every endeavor should be made to se- 
cure the enforcement of the Prohib- 



itory Law by the regularly chosen of- 
ficers. Public sentiment has much 
to do with this question; the enforce- 
ment or non-enforcement of prohibi- 
tion in any locality depends upon the 
general disposition of the people. Pro- 
hibition is no longer a question for a 
political campaign; it is forever set- 
tied, and cannot be changed until the 
people give their consent. If any- 
thing further can be done to increase 
the sobriety and morality of the peo- 
ple by temperance legislation I hope 
it will receive your careful considera- 
tion. It should not be forgotten that 
too frequent changes destroy the ef- 
ficiency and moral power of enforcing 
laws, and that "no principle of crim- 
inal law is better settled than that the 
certainty of punishment is more im- 
portant than severity." One objec- 
tion to the constabulary law could be 
removed by requiring State constables 
to give sufficient bonds for faithful 
performance of duty, as is required of 
all county and municipal officers of 
like character. Provisions should also 
be made for removal from office for 
good and sufficient reasons." 

Legislature of 1885. 

The Legislature that year, (1885,) 
made it neccssarv for the constables 
who were appointed by the Governor 
to execute the liquor laws, to give 
bonds in the sum of $500, for the faith- 
ful performance of their duties. They 
also passed the following: 

"Whoever advertises or gives iotice 
of the sale or keeping for sale of intox- 
ica ing liquors, or knowingly publish- 
es any newspaper in which such no- 
tices are given, shall be fined for such 
offence the sum of $20 and costs, to be 
recovered by complaint. One-half of 
said fine to complainant, and other 
one-half to the town in which said no- 
tice is published." 

In 1886 Joseph R. Bodwell of Hal- 
lowell was elected Governor, over 
Clark S. Edwards Democrat. The 
Prohibitionists nominated Aaron 
Clark who received 3,851 votes. Gov. 
Bodwell in hi. message in 1887, said 
regarding prohibition: 

"The question of the prohibition of 
the liquor traffic in Maine has engaged 
popular attention within the last year 
to a considerable extent. The agitation 
has resulted in a re -affirmation on the 
part of the people, at the polls of their 
full faith in the prohibitory system, 
and of their desire to see the law fair- 
ly administered and properly enforced. 



57 



The situation in the State respecting 
the law may be briefly and candidly 
stated. In from three-fourths to four- 
fifths of the towns of the State the 
law is well enforced and has practical- 
ly abolished the sale of spirituous and 
malt liauors as a beverage. In the 
larger cities and towns, on the sea- 
board and at railway centers, it has 
been found more difficult to secure 
perfect compliance with the law but 
it can still be said that at very few 
points in the State is liauor openly 
sold. The offenses against the law are 
in large part clandestine, and therefore 
difficult to detect and expose by legal 
testimony. But it is a great moral 
gain when the liquor seller is driven 
from the light of day to secret places 
and to stealthy devices to carry on his 
hurtful and demoralizing traffic. 

"Some of the more zealous friends of 
the temperance cause think that an 
increase of the penalties, especially for 
the first offense of liquor selling, 
would cure the admitted evil of im- 
perfect enforcement, but the more 
prudent, and I think by far the larg- 
er number, are of the opinion that an 
increase of the penalty would do harm, 
rather than good. What is actually 
needed at the points named is a sound 
public opinion to urge and uphold the 
enforcement of the law. Where that 
is wanting the case is made difficult 
with the Prohibitory Law, as, indeed, 
it always is with every form of law. 
Perhaps an increase of penalty would, 
in the places referred to, enhance, 
rather than diminish, the evils of in- 
difference and of hostility. 

"It can, however, be said with sat- 
isfaction that even with this imper- 
fect enforcement at certain points, the 
law has been of immeasurable value 
in reducing the liquor traffic, and has 
correspondingly increased the wealth 
of the State by increasing the sobriety 
of the people and saving the fruits of 
industry. One evil, inseparable from 
a law enacted after a strong popular 
contest, is that the prevailing side is 
looked to as the one to enforce its 
provisions, whereas every law should 
be as binding upon those who opposed 
its enactment as upon those who la- 
bored for it. The experience of Maine 
for the last 30 years abundantly justi- 
fies the adoption of the prohibitory 
system, and it will be the duty of the 
Legislature to add to its efficiency in 
whatever way, after full and impartial 
investigation, may be found practica- 
ble, — always remembering that legal 



penalties must be kept inside, and not 
pressed beyond, the bounds of public 
opinion." 



LETTER XXVIIL 

PROHIBITION AN ISSUE IN THE 
FIRST BURLEIGH CAMPAIGN. 

AUGUSTA, Jan. 28.— (Special Cor- 
respondence.) — "The great evils of the 
liquor traffic, the pernicious influence 
of the saloon upon the public morals 
an I the disorder and crime resulting 
from intemperance have rendered re- 
strictive and prohibitory legislation 
imperatively necessary in the opinion 
of a large majority of the people of 
the State. Both by constitutional 
provision and by statutory enact- 
ments, Maine has permanently pro- 
hibited the manufacture and sale of 
alcoholic liquors, except for medicinal 
and mechanical purposes. Long ex- 
perience has demonstrated the wis- 
dom and advantages of this policy. 

"Yet like all other laws against 
public evils, that against the liquor 
traffic has its violators, those who 
wantonly disregard the interests of 
the community and the authority of 
the State. This renders it necessary 
that those intrusted by the people 
with the enforcement of the laws 
should be prompt and faithful in the 
discharge of their sworn obligations. 
So long as it shall be incumbent upon 
me to discharge the duties of the ex- 
ecutive of the State it will be my en- 
leavor to enforce the laws with vigor 
and with impartiality. To success- 
fully discharge my official duty in 
this connection it is necessary that 
th~ Governor should have the earnest 
and hearty aid of all other executive 
officers and the active co-operation of 
the people." 

Thus wrote Governor Burleigh in 
his inaugural address in 1889. He had 
been elected in 1888 over the Demo- 
cratic candidate, William L. Putnam, 
Volney B. Cushing being the Pro- 
hibitory candidate, William H. Sim- 
mons, Labor candidate. The total 
vote that year was large, being 145,- 
384. Mr. Burleigh had 18,053 votes 
ovo. Mr. Putnam, who received the 
largest Democratic vote ever cast in 
Maine, unless the vote cast for Harris 
M. Plaisted in 1880 and 1882, could be 
reckoned as Democratic. The Pro- 
hibitory candidate received 3,109 votes, 
and the labor candidate, 1,526. 

At this time even the most strenu- 
ous advocate of a license system could 
but admit that the cause of temper- 



as 



ance and prohibition had made marked 
progress. Conditions were in great 
contrast with those which existed in 
1789, exactly a century before. In 
that year the general court of Massa- 
chusetts passed "an act to encourage 
the manufacture and consumption of 
strong beer, ale, and other malt liq- 
uors, by exempting them from taxa- 
tion for five years." This was done 
under the impression that it "would 
promote the purposes of husbandry 
and commerce, by encouraging the 
growth of such materials as are con- 
genial to our soil and climate." In 
justice to the law makers of that 
time it should be stated that at the 
same time that same legislature 
passed an act which was promotive of 
better things. It was made the duty 
of every town and district of 50 fam- 
ilies "to hire a schoolmaster of good 
morals" to teach reading, arithme- 
tic and decent behavior, for six 
months in the year. The language 
used was as follows: "A school mas- 
ter of good morals to teach children 
to read and write, and to instruct 
them in the English language, as well 
as in arithmetic, orthography and de- 
cent behavior for six months of the 
year." 

Campaign of 1890. 
Up to this time the constitutional 
amendment which was adopted in 1884 
had seemed to stop the agitation of 
the liquor question. But in 1890 the 
issue again came prominently before 
the people. Gov. Burleigh was renom- 
inated by the Republicans. The resolu- 
tions of the Republican convention rec- 
ognized the evils of intemperance, and 
sympathized with all well directed ef- 
forts to eradicate them. The party 
emphatically renewed its allegiance to 
the principle of the prohibition of the 
liquor traffic, and insisted upon a 
thorough and effective enforcement of 
the Prohibitory Law. It demanded of 
Congress the enactment of such legis- 
lation as should enable each state to 
exercise full control within its borders 
of traffic in all liquors whether import- 
ed therein in original packages or 
otherwise. 

The Democratic convention was held 
in Augusta on June 4, and Hon. M. P. 
Prank of Portland was the presiding 
officer. The committee on resolutions 
was J. S. Lyford of Androscoggin, W. 
S. Spear, Aroostook; Augustus F. 
Moulton, Cumberland; H. C. White- 
house, Franklin; R.J.Worcester, Han- 
cock; Charles F. Johnson, Kennebec* 
Lincoln; O. N. Bradbury, Oxford; P. H. 
Gillin, Penobscot; D. F. Ayer, Piscata- 



quis; Charles W. Larrabee, Sagadahoc; 
D. M. Parks, Somerset; L. H. Murch, 
Waldo; W. E. Cooper, Washington, and 
L. H. Stevens, York. 

Mr. Johnson representing seven of 
the committee, presented a resolution 
in favor of resubmission, and local op- 
tion. It was defeated by a vote of 273 
to 176. The resolution adopted, which 
referred to the Republican party and 
its position upon prohibition, read: 

"We denounce this trifling with the 
constitution of the State, and their 
shameless hypocricy in dealing with 
the temperance question, permitting 
the unrestrained sale of intoxicating 
liquors throughout the State. We rec- 
ognize the evils of intemperance, and 
sympathize with all honest, well di- 
rected efforts to eradicate them, and 
in support of this, we appeal to the 
thoughtful men and women of Maine 
that all true enforcement of the Pro- 
hibitory Laws has been, with a few ex- 
ceptions, in the hands of Democratic 
officials. 

Francis W. Hill of Exeter was nomi- 
nated as candidate for Governor. But 
he died shortly afterwards, and an- 
other convention nominate a can- 
didate for Governor was held in Au- 
gusta, July 2. Mr. Frank again pre- 
sided. This being a second conven- 
tion, and coming at a season of the 
year when the farmers were busy, 
there was not a large attendance from 
the rural districts. The friends of 
license in the cities made a special ef- 
fort to attend. A license resolution 
supported by such able men as W. H. 
McClellan of Belfast, William Henry 
Clifford of Portland, and was opposed 
by Elliot King of Portland, Henry 
Hudson of Guilford, F. B. Torsey of 
Bath and others. 

There was great excitement and 
strong feeling in the convention. The 
debate was long and spirited. After it 
had proceeded for a time a country 
delegate arose, and said that he had 
come there to vote for a license plank, 
but as he did not see many of the till- 
ers of the soil present, he should vote 
against it. When the vote was taken, 
the license men won Ly a vote of 145 
to 99. Pandemonium reigned for a 
time, and the license men were greatly 
elated. The vote by counties on the 
resolution was as follows: 
Counties. Yes. No. 

Anclroscoggin 3 11 

Aroostook 3 1 

Cumberland 13 13 

Franklin 1 

Hancock 1 



59 



Knox 3 

Kenn ebee 38 24 

Lincoln 3 3 

Oxford 1 

Penobscot 36 

Piscataquis 8 

Sagadahoc 2 15 

Somerset 8 3 

Waldo 21 7 

Washington 1 1 

York 1 8 

The Hon. William P. Thompson of 
Belfast was nominated as the candi- 
date for Governor. 

Rural Democrats Displeased. 

The action of this convention was 
very displeasing to the Democrats in 
the rural districts, and to many in the 
cities. It was claimed that the li- 
cense element in the party had taken 
advantage of the peculiar conditions 
under which the convention was held, 
and which was not a representative 
gathering, and had forced the liquor 
question upon the party. Mr. Burleigh 
in the election which followed, re- 
ceived the largest majority that had 
been given any Republican candidate 
since 1866. It was an off year, and the 
total vote naturally was not as large 
as it is in a Presidential year. Mr. 
Burleigh received 64,259 votes, a de- 
crease of 15.142 from the vote of two 
years previous. Mr. Thompson re- 
ceived 45.360, a decrease of 15,988 from 
Mr. Putnam's vote in 1888. The Re- 
publican loss was about 19 per cent, 
to the Democratic loss of 26 per cent. 

The Democratic license leaders were 
very much disturbed over the result of 
this election, and tried to explain it in 
various ways. Among other things, 
they blamed the Democratic State 
committee for inactivity. The Demo- 
crats who favored prohibition said that 
the expected had happened, and de- 
clared that it was due to that second 
convention, which declared for license. 
Aaron Clark, the prohibition candidate 
that year received 2,981 votes, and it 
was asserted that the efforts of that 
party tended to aid the Democrats, al- 
though they had openly declared them- 
selves in favor of license. 

Gov. Burleigh, in his message in 
1891, said: 

"The past year has been an import- 
ant one for the temperance interests 
of our State. For the first time since 
the adoption of th? prohibitory amend- 
ment to our constitution, the people of 
Maine have been afforded an oppor- 
tunity to pronounce at the polls upon 



a movement looking to its repeal, and 
the substitution of the high license 
system. There was no uncertainty in 
their decision. By an emphatic ma- 
jority they declare their belief that 
the best interests of temperance in this 
State, and the highest welfare of all 
ou. citizens, demand the maintenance 
of prohibition. 

"It cannot be denied that the law 
for the suppression of the liquor traf- 
fic is often violated, and that officials 
chargeJ with its enforcement are fre- 
quently derelict in duty. But it is 
undoubtedly true that this condition of 
affairs is mostly confined to our cities 
and larger villages. In other places 
the law appears to have been faithful- 
ly and successfully administered. Dur- 
ing the past two years I have person- 
ally written the officials in the various 
counties upon whom was devolved the 
duty of enforcing the law, urging the 
vital importance of the suppression of 
the dram shop. I did this that such 
officers might clearly understand that 
they would have the support of the 
executive department of the State in 
all their efforts to enforce prohibition. 

That the various officers of the 
State, upon whom devolves this duty, 
have accomplished a great deal in the 
enforcement of the law, is everywhere 
conceded. It is, nevertheless, neces- 
sary to the highest success of prohibi- 
tion that there should be in every com- 
munity a strong temperance sentiment 
demanding a vigorous enforcement of 
the law and sustaining the officers in 
their efforts to secure it. When the 
sentiment against the liquor traffic is 
as universal and emphatic as against 
other forms of crime, the violations of 
Prohibitory Law will be no more nu- 
merous than those of other penal en- 
actments. That prohibition has accom- 
plished a vast work for temperance in 
this State no candid man will deny. 
The liquor traffic is no longer respecta- 
ble. It is under the ban of popular 
condemnation. Those who engage in 
it are criminals in the sight of the law. 
The open dram shop with its flaunting 
signs and alluring windows, is no long- 
er a feature in our State. The rum- 
seller is forced into dark corners. He 
has been obliged, like other criminals, 
to resort to concealment and stealth, 
where, before the advent of prohibi- 
tion, he pursued his traffic with open- 
ness and ostentation. The whole traf- 
fic has been forever relegated to the 
furtive ways of crime. It is not easy 
to estimate fully the great temper- 
ance work which this change has 



60 



wrought in Maine. But there still re- 
mains much to be done in so educating 
public sentiment that it shall every- 
where insist upon the faithful en- 
forcement of the laws. Maine stands, 
by the emphatic declaration of her 
citizens, in the very van of temper- 
ance states. In keeping her there, the 
friends of prohibition must spare no 
effort or shrink from no responsibili- 
ty." 



LETTER XXIX. 

GOVERNOR CLEAVES' ADDRESS. 

AUGUSTA, Jan. 29. (Special Corre- 
spondence).— The Democrats in 1892 
nominated Charles F. Johnson of Wa- 
terville as their candidate for gover- 
nor. He was essentially the candidate 
of the younger element of the party. 

Mr. Johnson, young, able, magnetic, 
■courageous, finely educated and of high 
character, no better candidate for the 
party could have been selected. Mr. 
Johnson placed himself on record "n 
the convention as opposed to prohibi- 
tion. The young men of his party ral- 
lied about him and the liquor question 
was made prominent in the cities and 
large towns, although the Democrats 
found it to be unpopular in the rural 
districts. 

The Republican candidate was Henry 
B. Cleaves of Portland, a man of rug- 
ged honesty and much aibilty, who was 
already well known to the voters of 
the State, having held the high posi- 
tion of attorney general, among other 
offices, which he filled with distinc- 
tion. This campaign was in a presi- 
dential year and at a time when pro- 
tection and the currency question were 
prominent National issues. 

In the election this year the Demo- 
crats increased their vote something- 
like 10,000 and the Republicans 3000, in 
a total vote of 130,262. It was claimed 
that the Democratic vote was not in- 
creased through accessions from the 
Republican ranks, but solely by bring- 
ing out the reserve vote. In this elec- 
tion 3864 votes were thrown for Timo- 
thy B. Hussey, nominated by the pro- 
hibition party, and 2888 for Luther C. 
Bateman, candidate of the People's 
party. E. F. Knowlton, Union Labor, 
received 281 votes and 12 scattering. 

Governor Cleaves in his inaugural in 
January, 1893, said: "The restraining 
influence of our laws upon the sale of 
intoxicating liquors, has had a marked 
and beneficial effect. The people of 
Maine have, repeatedly, reaffirmed 
their adherence to all reasonable pro- 



visions for the suppression of intem- 
perance; and the educational, moral 
and religious influences, constantly be- 
ing exerted to maintain a healthful 
public sentiment, has had a controll- 
ing force in repressing the manufact- 
ure and sale of intoxicating liquors 
within our State. 

"There must be an active public 
opinion in support of the laws and 
whatever advance can be made in this 
direction will tend to lessen the blight- 
ing influence of intemperance and 
command general approval*." 

In 1894 the Republicans renominated 
Mr. Cleaves, and the Democrats again 
selected Mr. Johnson as their standard 
ibearer. The total vote was only 107,- 
776, the smallest it had been since 1877. 
Governor Cleaves received 69,322, in- 
creasing his vote, while the Democrat- 
ic vote fell off about 15,000, that party 
casting only 30,405 votes. Mr. Ira G. 
Hersey, the Prohibition candidate, had 
2721 votes and Luther C. Bateman, 
again the choice of the People's orga- 
nization, had 5328. In his inaugural 
address, Governor Cleaves took up at 
considerable length the matter of the 
(State liquor agency, about which there, 
was a wide difference of opinion. Some 
were of the opinion that, with a prohi- 
bitory liquor law the liquor agency was 
a necessity, to furnish pure liquors for 
medicinal, mechanical and manufact- 
uring purposes. Others contended that 
the only necessity for intoxicating li- 
quors was for medicinal purposes and 
that they could be furnished without 
a State agency, but, if it was decided 
to be necessary to continue the agen- 
cy, there should be very strict regula- 
tions surrounding it. 

In 1894 only 23 of the 438 cities and 
towns in the State had established 
agencies; but these had sold liquors, in 
the three years previous to 1895 to the 
amount of $338,801.71. Governor leaves 
said, relating to this matter. 
Liquor Agencies. 

"The State has for many years 
authorized the maintenance of a liquor* 
agency 'to furnish municipal officers 
of towns in this State, and duly auth- 
orized agents of other states, with 
pure, unadulterated, intoxicating 

liquors, to be kept and sold for medi- 
cinal, mechanical and manufacturing 
purposes.' With the continued advance 
of the cause of temperance in our 
State, and under the influence of a 
strong public sentiment, aroused and 
strengthened bv our various temper- 
ance and Christian organizations, the 
city and town agencies have been 



61 



gradually reduced, and in 1894, in the 
433 cities and towns in the State, only 
23 agencies were in existence. It appears 
however, from official returns, that 
during the past three years intoxicat- 
ing liquors 1 were sold through the State 
commissioner to the established city 
and town agencies, amounting to $338,- 
801.71. 

"The statute regulating this immense 
traffic seems to be inadequate in many 
respects. The law formerly required 
that the commissioner should have a 
place of business in Maine; but under 
existing statutes, it is only required 
that he 'shall reside and have his 
place of residence in this State.' Un- 
der the practical interpretation of the 
present statute, liquors may be shipped 
direct from other states to the city and 
town agencies, without ever going into 
the possession of the commissioner; 
and necessary tests by a competent as- 
sayer, to determine the purity of such 
liquors after they reach the State, are 
not obligatory. 

"The law compels the person assum- 
ing the duties of this position, to 
purchase of the retiring commissioner 
the entire stock of liquors on hand, yet 
the State does not retain the power to 
control the purchases or sales of such 
commissioner, or to limit the amount 
of stock to be carried. 

"It will be observed by a further ex- 
amination of the statutes, that the 
State has carefully relieved itself from 
nearly all responsibility, except the 
authority to finally pass upon the nu- 
merous applications for liquor commis- 
sioner; a position to which an annual 
salary of only fifteen hundred dollars 
is attached, and requiring, as now 
regulated, an invested capital of from 
$12,000 to $15,000. It will also be seen 
that the State disclaims all liability 
upon any contract made or obligation 
created in connection with the business 
carried on, but still takes its profits on 
the sales made by its agent. 

"If the State is to continue the 
maintenance of a State agency, and 
authorize city and town agencies, more 
stringent legislation regulating the 
same should be enacted; we should 
recognize that these agencies are es- 
tablishd solely to provide pure liquors, 
strictly for the purposes contemplated 
under the law sanctioning their crea- 
tion. As now permitted, the State is 
a silent partner, sharing in the profits. 
If it is to authorize the source of sup- 
ply in the future and receive its per- 



centage on sales, it should assume di- 
rect supervision- and control of all 
purchases, and of all sales to the city 
and town agencies. I recommend that 
either the State liquor agency be abol- 
ished, or that appropriate legislation 
be enacted in the direction indicated. 

"The municipal officers of cities and 
towns have the right, under existing 
law, to establish city and town agen- 
cies, and are now required to pur- 
chase their stock of liquors through 
the State agency. Under a former 
statute, the municipalities were auth- 
orized to supply such agencies inde- 
pendent of a State liquor agency. With 
the large number of these agencies 
then maintained throughout the State, 
the legal restrictions surrounding this 
method were not considered sufficiently 
rigid to prevent an abuse of the auth- 
ority conferred upon cities and towns, 
and the Legislature abolished the sys- 
tem, and established the State agency. 
A report, subsequently made by a leg- 
islative committee upon this subject, 
indicates that the latter method did 
not then entirely 'meet the approba- 
tion of the friends of law and good or- 
der.' 

"Should you deem it advisable to dis- 
continue the present method, and still 
continue to authorize city and town 
agencies, other questions will naturally 
arise. If it is impracticable for the 
State to assume the direct responsibil- 
ity of supplying such agencies, then 
you may be called upon to consider, 
whether it will be judicious to confer 
independent authority upon the munic- 
ipalities. Permit me to suggest, if 
legislation be contemplated in the lat- 
ter direction, it should be guarded by 
the most inflexible legal restrictions; 
regulations should be established for 
proper tests as to the purity of the 
purchases, after their arrival in this 
State; the profits of the cities and 
towns should be limited to a sum not 
in excess of the actual cost of main- 
taining the agency; such agencies 
should be continually subject to in- 
spection by a competent assayer; and 
absolute power should be conferred 
upon the courts to summarily close 
any agency, should it be found, upon 
investigation, that it was not being 
conducted strictly in accordance with 
the intention of the statute. 

"Whatever action you may deem it 
wise to take, it should be with a pur- 
pose to promote the cause of temper- 
ance in the State, and remedy exist- 
ing conditions. 



62 



"No reflection whatever is intended 
upon anyone connected, either now or 
in the past, with the management of 
the State agency, or the various city 
and town agencies. My criticism re- 
fers solely to the law governing the 
same, and to that the remedy should 
be unhesitatingly and vigorously ap- 
plied." 

In 1896 National politics predominat- 
ed. It was at that time the silver 
issue was raised, and this one ques- 
tion was discussed to the almost ut- 
ter exclusion of anything else. Llewel- 
lyn Powers was the candidate of the 
Republicans, and Melvin P. Frank 
was the Democratic standard bearer. 
Divided over the money issue, the 
Democratic party was demoralized and 
disorganized. The whole vote in the 
September election was 123,516. Mr. 
Powers received the phenomenal vote 
of 82,596, the Democratic vote was 34,- 
350, Ammi S. Ladd, Prohibitionist,. 2,- 
669; Luther C. Bateman, People's, 3,- 
292; William H. Clifford, National 
Democrat, 609, and there were 31 scat- 
tering. 

In his inaugural in 1897 Governor 
Powers said: 

"A large majority of the people of 
our State are thoroughly and conscien- 
tiously devoted to the principles and 
practice of temperance, integrity, mo- 
rality and virtue, as a fundamental 
policy essential to our best develop- 
ment and growth. They believe that 
the restraining influence of our pro- 
hibitory legislation has had a- marked 
effect in eradicating the evils result- 
ing from the liquor traffic. 

"Doubtless there has not been a full 
realization of what the most ardent 
and enthusiastic advocates of prohibi- 
tion prophesied and hoped, but cer- 
tainly great good has been accom- 
plished. 

"In most of our rural towns the 
groggery is a thing of the past; and 
we are moving in the right direction 
throughout the State. 

"It is my conviction that what we 
need today is a more active public 
sentiment in our large towns and 
cities, which will enforce the laws we 
now have, rather than additional pen- 
alties, that would make the enforce- 
ment more uncertain and difficult. 

"We should never forget that it is 
the certainty and not the severity of 
punishment that prevents crime. All 
efforts to increase this healthy public 
sentiment until it shall utterly root 
out and banish this blighting curse 



from our land should receive the 
cheerful support of all good citizens. 
We should take no steps backward. 
Maine, which boasts the proud honor 
of having been the pioneer in pro- 
hibitory legislation should and will 
continue to be a prohibition State." 

Governor Powers was renominated 
and elected in 1898, and in his mes- 
sage of 1899 he made no reference to 
the prohibitory question. 



LETTER XXX. 

THEIDEMOCRATIC POLICY OF 
RESUBMISSION. 

AUGUSTA, Jan. 30. (Special Corre- 
spondence.) — The Republicans in 1900 
elected John F. Hill, over Samuel L. 
Lord, Democrat, Grant Rogers, Prohi- 
bition, and M. W. Lermond, Socialist. 
On account of the difference of opinion 
on the currency question, the Demo- 
cratic party was still unorganized, al- 
though in this election Samuel L. Lord, 
wl.o had been the candidate in 1898, 
increased his vote from 29,485 to 40,086 

The liquor question was agitated 
again, and there was much talk and 
discussion about the matter of resub- 
mitting the constitutional amendment. 
It was now very well understood that 
the Democratic party was committed 
to this policy. 

In calling attention to the question 
of prohibition Governor Hill spoke to 
the Legislature in 1901 as follows: 

"Intemperance ib such a fruitful 
source of misery, pauperism and crime, 
and its multitude of victims is so 
great a burden upon the sober and in- 
dustrious citizen, that it is the duty of 
a government to control and restrict 
the liquor traffic in every legitimate 
way. By a provision of its constitu- 
tion and by statute laws, which with 
overwhelming majorities its citizens 
have repeatedly sustained at the polls, 
the State of Maine stands opposed to 
the manufacture and sale of intoxicat- 
ing liquors. The deliberate adoption 
of this policy by a people naturally 
careful and conservative in their judg- 
ments was the inevitable result of a 
moral evolution which recognized the 
demoralizing and far-reaching evils of 
intemperance, and sought to eradicate 
them from the community; and em- 
bodied the conviction that a traffic 
which took men from the ranks of 
productive industry, robbed them of 
their sober faculties, destroyed their 
self-respect and made them a burden 



and menace to those who had the right 
to look to them for support and protec- 
tion—a traffic which filled the poor- 
houses, prisons and asylums with hu- 
man wrecks', and miposed its greatest 
misery upon the innocent and helpless 
— was hostile to the public interests 
and wholly contrary to the spirit and 
purpose of a Christian civilization. 

"Fifty years ago, the so-called 
'Maine Law', prohibiting the sale of in- 
toxicating liquors, was placed upon our 
statute books, where it still remains. 
"While it has not accomplished all that 
its advocates and supporters hoped for, 
it has been a powerful force in the 
development and promotion of a 
healthy temperance sentiment among 
the people of our State. How marked 
and gratifying this advance has been 
will clearly oe shown by a comparison 
with the conditions existing 75 years 
ago. Then, liquor was largely manu- 
factured in our State, while its sale 
was as common and looked upon in 
much the same light as the traffic in 
dry goods and groceries. Abstinence, 
was the exception rather than the 
rule. The drink habit, in varying de- 
grees was so general as to excite little 
if any comment, and intemperance was 
more or less prevalent in every com- 
munity. 

"The temptations to drink were ev- 
erywhere visible, and too often found 
victims in the best youth of our State. 
Today, in a large majority of our 
country towns, there exists practical 
prohibition, and the law against the 
liquor traffic is as well enforced as 
against other forms of crime. Even 
in our cities and larger villages, where 
the liquor interests are most active 
and aggressive, and where the law is 
most persistently violated, it has not 
failed to exert a restraining and salu- 
tary influence; and has been a power 
in stimulating and promoting that in- 
telligent and vigorous public opinion 
which is the support of all effective 
law, and without which any legisla 
tive enactment must fall far short of 
its purpose. 

"In a community wh^re the official 
power is delegated from the people, 
public servants rarely rise superior to 
public opinion in their sense of duty. 
It is, therefore, essential that officers 
charged with the enforcement of law 
and the protection of society should 
be constantly sustained, in the faith- 
ful discharge of their obligations, by 
an active and healthy public senti- 
ment." 



Resubmission . 

The question of resubmission of the 
constitutional amendment had been 
widely discussed in the press, upon 
the stump, and by the church, and 
temperance organizations. A resolve 
to abrogate the constitutional amend- 
ment was introduced in the house, and 
after a discussion was defeated, by a 
vote of 84 to 34. Those who voted 
"Yea" were: 

Bradford, Briggs, Hudson; Carleton, 
Clark, Cordwell, Cramer, Daigle, Deer- 
ing, Dillingham, Farnsworth, Bedding- 
ton; Irving, Kaler, Kelley, Laliberte, 
Libby, Burnham; Littlehale, Mad- 
docks, MoNamara, Parkhurst, Rattan- 
gall, Plummer, Powers, Pittston; Ran- 
dall, Ross, Sabourin, Shaw, Skidmore, 
Sutherland, Thomas, Thompson, Bris- 
tol; Trickey, Vogell, Walls, Williams 
—34. 

Those who voted "nay" were 
Messrs. Adams, Allen, Sanford; An- 
drews, Norway; Andrews, Rockport; 
Ballard, Beal, Bennett, Bodwell, Booth- 
by, Brewster, Briggs, Harrison; Cain, 
Carr, Carson, Chase, Cook, Crosby, 
Cushman, Dearborn, Dodge, Dudley, 
Eaton, Farnsworth, Pembroke; Fel- 
lows, Foster, Fuller, Auburn; Fuller, 
Kennebunk; Gammon, Gardner. Gil- 
more, Gooding, Greene, Hammond, 
Harris, Harvey, Haskell, Lewiston; 
Hinkley, Hix, Hodgkins, Hoxie, Hurd, 
Jackson, Jefferson; Jackson, Monson; 
Kneeland, Knowlton, Lawrence, Leath- 
ers, Libby, Poland; Libbey, South 
Berwick; Little, Monmouth; Loud, 
Manley, McDougall, Mead, Minott, 
Morin, Noyes, Page, Peabody, Petten- 
gill, Pike, Porter, Pratt, Purmton, 
Putnam, Dixfleld; Putnam, Houlton; 
Russ, Sanborn, Smith, Somes, Sprague, 
Staples, Stevens, Sturgis, Swett, 
Thornton, Tornquist, Tufts, Walker, 
Walter, Weatherbee, Webb, White, E. 
Machias; White, Naples— 84. 

Those who were absent were Messrs. 
Boyd. Brackett, Dunn, Farrell, Fay, 
Hutchings, Jones, Low, Merritt, 
Phoenix, Powers, Fort Fairfield; Sar- 
gent, Young — 13. 

The following pairs were announced: 
Mr. Allan of Portland, no, with Mr. 
Little of Lewiston, yes; Mr. Bird, yes, 
with Mr. Dobson, no; Mr. Burrill, yes, 
with Mr. Thompson of China, no; Mr. 
Coffin, yes, with Mr. Moulton of Bow- 
doinham, no; Mr. Davis, yes, with Mr. 
Mayo, no; Mr. Frederick, no, with Mr. 
Wilson, yes; Mr. Haskell of Windham, 
no, with Mr. Moulton of South Port- 
land, yes; Mr. Hill of Belfast, no, with 



• 14 



Mr. Hyde, yes; Mr. Hill of Exeter, yes, 
with Mr. Spofford, no; Mr. Scammon, 
no, with Mr. Weymouth, yes. 

In the, Senate a rising vote was tak- 
en, it being 22 in the affirmative, to 3 
in the negative. 

The Legislature repealed Section 62 
of Chapter 27 of the Revised Statutes, 
as amended by Section 7 of the Public 
Laws of 1885, giving the Governor and 
Council power to appoint special con- 
stables for the enforcement of the 
liquor laws. 

In 1902 Governor Hill received a re- 
nomination by the Republicans, and 
was elected by a decided majority, over 
Samuel W. Gould, Democrat, James 
Perrigo, Prohibition, and Charles L. 
Fox, Socialist. James* Perrigo, the 
candidate of the Prohibition party, re- 
ceived 4,429 votes, the largest ever 
cast by that party, in this State. 
Governor Hill. 

"An awakened public sentiment 
among the people of Maine demands a 
more complete and vigorous enforce- 
ment of the Prohibitory Law," said 
Governor Hill in his address to the 
Legislature of 1903. "In nearly ail our 
country towns the law is respected, 
and obeyed. It is in the cities and large 
villages that it lias been most fre- 
quently and persistently violated. This 
condition of things is apparently due to 
the fact that in the larger places there 
had been wanting an active and 
healthy sentiment in support of the 
law, and indifference and opposition 
has made its enforcement more diffi- 
cult. 

"Disrespect of one law breeds disre- 
spect of all law, and there is a growing 
appreciation of the far-reaching de- 
moralization that comes from the fail- 
ure to honestly and fearlessly adminis- 
ter every law upon our statute books. 

"Officers whose duty it is to see that 
the law is observed have no option in 
the matter; if they respect their official 
obligation and are true to their official 
oath; but it is most important that 
every law should be sustained by an 
unquestioned public sentiment, for of- 
ficials elected by popular suffrage sel- 
dom rise to higher conception of pub- 
lic duty than is represented by the 
prevailing sentiment of their constit- 
uents. 

"Good citizens may differ among 
themselves as to the best method of 
contending with the liquor evil, but 
they cannot afford to be otherwise 
than a unit in demanding the faithful, 
fearless, and impartial enforcement of 



every existing law, so long as it con- 
tinues to be the law. 

"Among some of the most earnest 
and sincere friends of temperance in 
the State, there is a strong feeling 
that the prohibitory amendment should 
again be submitted to the people, that 
they may have an opportunity to de- 
clare themselves upon the question. 
They believe that such an expression 
of the popular will would give re- 
newed strength to the law, and lead to 
more complete and thorough enforce- 
ment in those portions of the State 
where officials have failed to do their 
duty. 

"If you are satisfied that the people 
desire to express themselves upon this 
matter, it will be your duty to give 
them an opportunity to definitely pass 
upon the whole question at the polls." 

In 1903 the matter of annulling and 
abrogating the Constitutional Amend- 
ment again came before the Legisla- 
ture. In the House the vote was 88 
to 40 against the measure. 

Those who voted "yea" were: 

Messrs. Barker, Benner, Brewster, 
Burrill, Buzzell, Cameron, Carle ton, 
Curtis, Daniels, Davis, Drew, Farns- 
worth, Pembroke; Gagnon, Haskell, 
Hayes, Irving, Kelley, Knowlton, Cam- 
den; Lamb, Little, Maybury, Mcln- 
tire, McNamara, Pooler, Poor, Ross, 
Sewall, Shackford, Poland; Shaw, 
Spear, Stearns, Stover, Sutherland, 
Swett, Sweeney, Tartre, Thomas, 
Harps well; Thompson, Orono; Thur- 
low, Tremblay — 40. 

Those who voted "nay" were: 

Messrs. Abbott, Albert, Bailey, 
Blake, Blanchard, Bod well, Briggs, 
Buxton; Campbell, Clarke, Nobleboro; 
Clark, Prospect; Coburn, Cole, Cook, 
Davidson, Dilling, Dodge, Nickerson, 
Norton, Oakes, Auburn; Oakes, Mil- 
ford; Page, Drew PL; Page, Skowhe- 
gan; Parrott, Patterson, Peaslee, 
Pettengill, Pike, Potter, Purin- 

ton, Downing, Dudley, Eaton, Calais; 
Eaton, Wells; Farnsworth, Trem.; 
Favour Foss, Gannett, Gard- 

ner, Greenleaf, Hall, Hawkes, 
Hill, Buxton; Hill, Winterport; 
Howe, Hubbard, Jones, Josselyn, 
Knapp, Knowlton, New Portland; 
Leavitt, Libby, Mechanic Falls; Libby, 
Newfield; Libby, Oakland; Littlefield, 
Manson, McFaul, McGregor, McKusick* 
Mirriam, Mewer, Mills, Nash, New- 
comb, Putnam, Danforth; Putnam, 
Houlton; Randall, Reynolds, Ruggles, 
Sargent, Savage, Skackford, Harring- 
ton; Smith, Hartland; Smith, Madison; 
Smith, Presque Isle; Snowe, Sturgis, 



65 



Tapley, Thomas, Topsham; Thompson, 
China; Todd, Tripp, Twambly, Watson, 
Weatherbee, Wentworth, White, Wil- 
liams. — 88. 

Those who were absent were Messrs. 
Allen, Wellington; Bussey, Furbish, 
Hill, Brownfield; Howes, Kimball, Mor- 
rison, Taylor, Thornton. — 9. 

The following pairs were announced: 

Allen of Sanford, no, with Weeks, 
yes. 

Boyd, yes, with Perkins, no. 

Butler, yes, with Waterhouse, no. 

Cordwell, yes, with Mead, no. 

Hinckley, yes, with Rice, no. 

Low, no, with Nelson, yes. 

In the Senate there was a decided 
majority against the proposition. 



LETTER XXXL 

NULLIFICATION OF LAW. 

AUGUSTA, Feb. 1. (Special Corre- 
spondence.) — A critical period in the 
prohibitory legislation of Maine had 
now been reached. With the first in- 
ception of the Prohibitory Law idea, it 
was supported by no particular politi- 
cal party. It is true, however, that 
from the nomination of the first Re- 
publican candidate for Governor, An- 
son P. Morrill, in 1855, the prohibi- 
tory principle was espoused by that 
party. In 1855 Governor Morrill re- 
ceived the largest number of votes of 
the three candidates who were nomi- 
nated. The opposition, however, in 
the Legislature, united upon Samuel 
Wells, the Democratic nominee, and he 
was declared elected. 

Judge Wells had been selected as the 
Democratic candidate because he was 
the ablest man in the State who rep- 
resented the anti-prohibitory principle. 
He was a distinguished lawyer, and 
had serve as associate justice of 
the Supreme Court, from Sept. 28, 1847, 
to March 31, 1854, when he resigned. 
The united anti-prohibitory element, as 
has been shown, joined their forces, 
and at this time the Prohibitory Law 
was repealed. Probably no man could 
have more ably argued the license side 
of the question than did Governor 
Wells. It has been seen that the peo- 
ple, however, believed in the prohibi- 
tory principles, and a Prohibitory Law 
was speedily re-enacted. 

Democratic leaders, or at least many 
of them, were always opposed to pro- 
hibition. Many of the rank and file of 
the party have always believed, as 
they now believe, that laws should pro- 



hibit the liquor traffic. And for quite 
a number of years, no anti-prohibitory 
resolution could be passed in a Maine 
State Democratic convention. The or- 
ganised liquor interest has charged the 
anti-saloon element with introducing 
prohibition into politics. It was just 
as natural that this question should 
become a part of politics, as it is for 
day to follow the night. No candid 
student of the history of prohibitory 
legislation can come to any other con- 
clusion, than that the liquor interests 
have always organized, and, whenever 
possible, have elected, city, county and 
State officials who were favorable to 
their view of the question. 

This has been the history of every- 
thing connected with the liquor inter- 
ests, not only in this State, but 
throughout the Country, and through- 
out the civilized world. 

Nullification. 

In 1904 there was great unrest 
throughout the State among those 
who were favorable to the enforce- 
ment of the prohibitory liquor laws. 
It was justly claimed that in many 
sections of the State the prohibitory 
laws were nullified, and that there was 
no pretense whatever of enforcing the 
laws against liquor selling. In some 
parts of the State it was charged that 
the sheriffs made the law, and, it is 
true, that, in some sections, the prac- 
tice of fining the liquor dealers at stat- 
ed periods, was in vogue, and jail sen- 
tences were the exception, rather than 
the rule. In some of the more densely 
populated parts of the State there was 
practically an illegal license law. This 
condition of things disturbed the 
friends of prohibiton, and it became 
evident that a halt must be called, or 
the cause of prohibiton would be not 
only thrown into disrepute, but that 
the constitutional amendment would 
be repealed, and thus the first step ta- 
ken to a return to a license state. 

The Democratic party was now com- 
mitted to a resubmission of this 
amendment, and, it was claimed, that 
a large part of the Republican voters 
were also disposed to favor this ac- 
tion. No doubt a great many causes 
had brought about this practical 
nullification of the prohibitory laws, in 
some parts of the State. For one 
thing, ever since 1894 the Republicans 
had carried the State by immense ma- 
jorities. To all intents and purposes, 
on account of the utter demoraliza- 
tion of the Democratic party over the 
silver question, and other questions 



0'6 



brought forward by the radical ele- 
ment of that party, there was but one 
party in the State. A nomination in 
a Republican convention was equiva- 
lent to an election. Republican leaders 
and Republican officials were lax in the 
demands for the strict enforcement of 
the prohibitory laws. 

The sentiment against nullification 
reached its critical stage in 1904. In 
that year there was a great contest in 
the Republican party for the nomina- 
tion for governor. Early in the cam- 
paign Joseph H. Manley, who had been 
honored with the chairmanship of the 
Republican state committee, been a 
member of the Republican National 
committee and of the executive com- 
mittee of the National committee, 
speaker of the Maine house of repre- 
sentatives, and regarded, perhaps, as 
the most influential Republican in the 
State, was a candidate for the nomina- 
tion, but finally withdrew. 

Other strong men, however, were in 
the field, and among them, William 
T. Cobb of Rockland, Bert M. Fernald 
of Poland, and Charles H. Prescott of 
Biddeford. The contest culminated 
in the most exciting political conven- 
tion ever held in the State. It was 
held in Bangor, and no one who was 
present will ever forget the scenes 
which preceded the nomination. Wil- 
liam T. Cobb was nominated on the first 
ballot. 

The convention was presided over 
by the United States Senator Eugene 
Hale, who, in his speech, took a de- 
cided stand in favor of prohibition, 
and the convention passed an em- 
phatic resolution favoring the prohib- 
itory principle. It read as follows: 

"The Republican party demands the 
faithful and impartial enforcement of 
the laws of the State, which prohibit 
the manufacture and illegal sale of 
intoxicating liquors, and we insist 
upon the action to this end of every 
public officer, the duties of whose of- 
fice require enforcement of these 
laws." 

The Democratic party had now be- 
come better organized than it had 
been for several years. It was thought 
they would renominate as their can- 
didate for Governor Samuel W. Gould 
of Skowhegan, who had been their 
nominee in the State election two 
years before. Cyrus W. Davis, of 
Waterville, was nominated, however. 
There was an element in the conven- 
tion which opposed any allusion to 
the resubmission plank in the plat- 
form, and the opposition even went so 



far as to attempt to refuse recogni- 
tion to the element. E. S. Fossett of 
Portland finely gained the floor and 
declared that the question of resub- 
mission, if adopted by the convention, 
would cost the Democratic party 10,- 
000 votes in the State. He moved that 
the resubmission plank be stricken 
from the platform. 

"We lost upon it before, and for 
'God's sake, cut it out this time," said 
Mr. Fossett. The plank adopted was 
as follows: 

"We believe in a government of law 
and in an honest and impartial en- 
forcement of all laws including the 
Prohibitory Law, but, believing as we 
do, that the people of Maine are ca- 
pable of self government and believ- 
ing in the principle of the referendum, 
we ask that at the earliest opportunity 
the question of retaining the fifth 
amendment as a part of the State con- 
stitution be submitted to the people." 
Governor Cobb. 

Mr. Cobb, in his first speech of the 
campaign, placed himself fairly and 
emphatically upon record as favorable 
to the strict enforcement of the pro- 
hibitory liquor law, and made this 
prominent throughout the campaign. 
The campaign was an active and ex- 
citing one. It was understood that 
Mr. Cobb stood for prohibition, and 
that Mr. Davis favored resubmission. 
It was argued by the Democrats in 
the country towns that resubmission 
did not mean license, but in the cities 
those who were favorable to the sale 
of intoxicating liquors fully under- 
stood that resubmission would be but 
the first step towards a high license 
or local option law. 

The vote in the election was the 
largest which had been cast since 1884. 
Mr. Cobb received 76,962 votes, Mr. Da- 
vis 50,146, Nathan F. Woodbury, pro- 
hibition, 2,788, Wilbur G. Hapgood, So- 
cialist, 1,590, and there were 27 scat- 
tering votes. 

The Democratic vote in the previous 
election had been 38,107, and the Demo- 
crats claimed that the large increase 
showed that the people were favorable 
to resubmission. The Republicans ar- 
gued that it meant nothing more than 
that the Democrats had brought out 
their reserve vote, as had their own 
party, as shown by the large increase 
over the vote of 1902, and that also 
many Democrats who had left their 
party temporarily on account of the 
currency and other vexed issues, had 
returned to their former political al- 
legiance. 



67 



Friends of prohibition were delighted 
with the result and declared that the 
question of resubmission had been 
voted upon, practically, and that those 
who were opposed to the license sys- 
tem had won a decided victory. 

Governor Cobb in his message to the 
Legislature in 1906 spoke in the fol- 
lowing clear-cut fashion, in words 
which could not be misunderstood. 

"But I do not mean to close this 1 ad- 
dress without speaking of a public 
question that lies very close to the 
heart and conscience of thousands of 
the men and women of this State, and 
one that should, and T believe does, ap- 
peal to every law-abiding citizen for a 
prompt and righteous settlement. 

"I refer to the existing Prohibitory 
Law, so-called, and to the condition of 
its practical non-enforcement in many 
of our cities and towns. I cannot hope 
to bring to its discussion new ideas, 
nor by the aid of unfamiliar argu- 
ments to throw new light upon the 
cause I believe it my duty to sustain, 
but I can and do avail myself of this 
opportunity to ask you to look at the 
fundamental truths and facts of this 
question, stripped of the covering that 
prejudice, partisanship and selfishness 
have inevitably and continuously laid 
upon them, and to decide as citizens 
and legislators where your duties lie 
in the treatment of the greatest issue 
that ever confronted the people of this 
State. This is an appeal not for legis- 
lation, but for the exercise of good 
citizenship; not for party advantage, 
but for public welfare. 

"Here is a law that was placed upon 
the statute books in obedience to the 
voters' commands. Its main object and 
purpose was to improve the condition 
of society by limiting the opportunities 
to gratify an appeite whose possession 
imay be one of the frailties of human 
nature. Its most earnest advocates 
never believed that it would entirely 
eradicate the evils against which it 
was directed, but once a law, they h^d 
the right— and they have it still— to ex- 
pect that its enforcement would be at- 
tempted by sworn officials with the 
same energy, persistency and honesty 
that generally characterizes the action 
of such officials in enforcing other 
laws. Has this always been done? Ev- 
ery intelligent citizen knows that it 
has not, and that in this statement is 
contained the reasons for past ''and pres- 
ent difficulties and the suggestion for 
a remedy. 

"A wholesome respect for law is the 



natural heritage of the people of 
iMaine. A very large majority of those 
who favor the maintenance and en- 
forcement of the Prohibitory Law do 
so because they believe that in that 
law is provided the best method of re- 
pressing and correcting an undoubted 
evil. They are not wedded to it as 
such, alone, but advocate it simply 
because in their judgment it is the 
best available means to accomplish a 
certain and necessary end. They form 
the element in our body-politic that 
placed the law on the statute 'books 
and kept it there. These people are not 
fanatics. They are law-abiding, rea- 
sonable and sincere, and would be the 
last to claim infallibility and the first 
to respond to a sound suggestion for 
civic progress. But above all they re- 
spect law and realize that in its gen- 
eral and ready observance lies the 
hope and promise of good government. 
Their position briefly stated is this: 
They believe first that the Prohibitory 
Law furnishes a practical method of 
lessening the sale and consequent use 
of intoxicating liquors, and second 
that inasmuch as that law is on our 
statute books it should be enforced 
with vigor, determination and unifor- 
mity. The moral strength of their po- 
sition lies in the fact that they are 
contending not for the adoption of a 
law, but for the enforcement of one 
already in existence. As to the first 
declaration, there is an honest differ- 
ence of opinion among our people; as 
to the second, there ought to be ab- 
solute unanimity. 

"The estimate in which the Prohibi- 
tory Law is held in certain parts of the 
State, and by many of our citizens, 
is working an inculcable injury to the 
forces that make for law and order. A 
disrespect and disregard for all law is 
being nurtured that if allowed to grow 
unchecked and unassailed will weaken 
and destroy the very foundations of 
good movement. 

"In reply to these assertions it may 
be urged that all these conditions 
would be improved if the law could be 
repealed or even resubmitted to the 
people. But such an answer is based 
wholly upon conjecture, and there are 
sound political reasons against such a 
course. The question has come to be 
the most important one in the politics 
of the State, and the dominant party 
is committed to the maintenance and 
enforcement of this law. If party pro- 
fessions are entitled to confidence, and 
if the votes of a very considerable ma- 
jority of our citizens— registered as I 



ibelieve in large part upon this par- 
ticular proposition— furnish any indi- 
cation of their wishes, by what code 
of political ethics can the representa- 
tives of that party justify themselves 
in favoring now any policy other than 
that of maintaining and enforcing this 
law? 

"If the people of Maine ever aban- 
don or materially change the Prohibi- 
tory Law, it will be done only after 
they have seen it enforced honestly 
and uniformly, in the same reasonable 
and persistent manner that other laws 
are enforced, and after they have be- 
come convinced that such enforcement 
has actually failed to accomplish the 
desired end. Enforcement may cause 
the law to be changed, but non-en- 
forcement never. 

"This question has reached that 
stage of discussion and treatment 
where differences of opinion as to the 
wisdom of the law itself should be al- 
lowed to embarrass the situation no 
longer. This law must be enforced in 
order that all law may be vindicated, 
and to the performance of this duty 
every man, irrespective of party but 
-united in the interests of good citi- 
zenship, may well direct his energy 
and influence. The task is not an easy 
one, and the practical difficulties that 
stand in the way of its accomplish- 
ment should be neither ignored nor 
underestimated; but an aroused and 
determined public sentiment standing 
for order and respect of law can force 
officials to do their duty, or failing in 
this, can fill their places with those 
who will." 



LETTER XXXIL 

THE STURGIS LAW. 

GOVERNOR COBB'S GREAT DEERING 

CLUB ADDRESS. 

AUGUSTA, Feb. 2.— (Special corres- 
pondence.)— It was felt by the friends 
of Prohibition that it was necessary, 
in order to correct existing conditions, 
that the Governor should be given 
more power in regard to the enforce- 
ment of the Prohibitory Laws. Early 
in the session of 1905, therefore, Sena- 
tor H. H. Sturgis of Standish pre- 
sented a bill entitled 'An act to pro- 
vide for the better enforcement of the 
laws against the manufacture and sale 
of intoxicating liquors." 

This act has since been popularly 
known as "The Sturgis Law." It 
passed the Senate by a vote of 23 to 
5, those who voted in the affirmative 
being Allen, Ayer, Bailey. Bartlett, 
Brown, Clark, Furbish, Gardiner, Hes- 
elton, Irving, Knowlton, Mills, Morse, 



Owen, Pierce, Pike, Hummer, Potter, 
Putnam, Shackford, Simpson, Stetson, 
Sturgis; negatives, Curtis, Philoon, 
Shaw, Staples, Tartre. 

Senator Sturgis, who introduced this 
act, and championed it, is an able 
business man, and one who has the 
courage of his convictions. He thor- 
oughly believed that the Governor 
should be given power to stop nulli- 
fication which had been particularly 
prominent in his own county, where 
it was claimed the law had been ig- 
nored both by Republican and Demo- 
cratic sheriffs. William M. Pennell of 
Brunswick, who had been elected sher- 
iff on the Democratic ticket in Cum- 
berland County in 1902, openly declar- 
ed that the Prohibitory Law should 
not be enforced, that the only way to 
do was to "regulate" the sale of li- 
quors, and this he proceeded to do af- 
ter a plan of his own. 

In the campaign of 1904 Sheriff Pen- 
nell defended his plan upon the stump 
and was re-elected. By some it was 
asserted that his re-election was due 
to the fact that he had openly es- 
poused the nullification of liquor laws, 
while others declared that it was due 
to the fact that, because of disaffec- 
tions in their own ranks, those who 
really opposed nuulification could not 
unite their forces. 

The Sturgis act was adopted in the 
house by a vote of 77 to 50. Those who 
voted "yea" were, Albert, Baldwin, 
Barrows, Bean, Berry, Blanchard, 
Bradford of Livermore. Briggs, Bun- 
ker, Cobb, Copp. Cushman, Davis of 
Benton, Davis of Guilford, Dennison, 
Fawsette, Fulton, Gannett, Goodwin, 
v&rant, Hastings, Hill, Holmes, Howes, 
Yngersol, Irving, Johnson of Hallowell, 
Jordan of Cape Elizabeth, Jordan of 
Yarmouth, Kimball, Kinsman of Corn- 
ville, Knapp, Littlefield, Lougee, Mar- 
shall, Martin, Merrill of Dixfield, Mer- 
rill of Skowhegan, Miller, Milliken, 
Nash of Damariscotta, Nash of Ken- 
nebunk, Neweomb, Norcross, Oakes of 
Auburn, Oakes of Milford, Page of Ap- 
pleton, Peacock, Powers, Purinton, 
Putnam, Russell, Sargent of Brewer. 
Sargent of Castine, Sawyer of Mill- 
bridge, Sawyer of Smithfield, Scriibner 
of Springfield, Sewall, Shaw, Smart, 
Smith of Saco, Stearns, Tapley, Ther- 
riault, Thomas, Thompson of Roque 
Bluffs, Tracy, Treworgy, Tupper, Turn 
er, Usher, Vittum. Washburn, Weth- 
erby, Webb, Webster, Whitmore. 

Those who voted nay were: Allen, 
Belleau, Bradford of Friendship, Bur- 
keett, Byron, Cole. Downs, Dudley, 
Foss, Garcelon, Giddings, Hanson, 
Hathaway Higgins, Hodgkins, Hussey, 
Hutchins, Gilson, Johnson of Water- 
ville, Jones, Josselyn, Leighton, Leon- 
ard, Libbey, Morey, Morton, Mullen, 
Newbegin, O'Brien, Page of Hamp- 
den, Pendleton, Percy, Philbrook, 
Poor, Reed, Sanborn, Seavey, Sheven- 
ell, Sparrow, Staples, Stevens, Swain, 
Swett, Thurlough, Trickey, Walker, 



69 



White, Wilder, Witherspoon, Witt. 

Those who were absent were Clark, 
Cousins, Gray, Hall, Kinsman of Au- 
gusta, LaLiberte, Lannigan, Longfei- 
Jow, Perry, Price, Scribner of Charles- 
ton. 

The following pairs were announced: 
Abbott yes, with Bliss, no; Baxter no, 
with Smith of Madison, yes; Buzzell, 
no, with Haggerty of Sedgwick, yes; 
Haggerty of Ellsworth, yes, with Ver- 
rlll, no; Hale, no, with Johnson of 
Calais, yes; Morrison, yes, with 
Thompson of Orono, no. 

Gives Governor Power. 

The Sturgis act authorized the 
Governor to appoint a commission 
consisting of three persons, one of 
whom should be a lawyer. Two mem- 
bers of the commission to be from the 
dominant party, and one from the po- 
litical party casting the next highest 
vote at the last State election. Eiach 
member was paid a salary of $1,500 a 
year, and actual expenses. The com- 
missioners were authorized to act in 
any part of the State, and to execute 
the common law and statutory pow- 
ers of sheriffs in enforcement of th'i 
law, against the manufacture and sale 
of intoxicating liquors. 

The commission has power to ap- 
point such number of deputy enforce- 
forcement commissioners as in its 
judgment may be necessary. These 
deputies to give bond in sum of $2,500 
each can be sent to any part of the 
State, and are paid $3 a day, and ac- 
tual expenses. All fines collected by 
prosecutions, undertaken by commis*- 
sioners or deputies, are divided equal- 
ly between the State and County in 
which prosecution was had. 

This act gave the Governor power to 
remove for cause the county attorney 
who was derelict in his duty and ap- 
point an attorney to perform the du- 
ties of enforcing the law in his place. 
(This has since been declared uncon- 
stitutional.) If in the judgment of the 
Governor the commission is not neces- 
sary he can at any time remove all 
members of said commission, and the 
commission is suspended until such 
time as its services may be again re- 
quired. 

The Governor appointed Waldo Pet- 
tingill of Rumford Falls, Norman L. 
Bassett of Augusta, and Alfred H. 
Lang, of Skowhegan, as enforcement 
commissioners. The commissioners 
deemed it necessary to appoint special 
deputies for certain of the counties, 
and a change in conditions was at 
once noticeable. Where there had 
been an open sale of liquors, the busi- 
ness either ceased or was carried on by 
stealth, and in dives. In Cumberland 
County Sheriff Pennell so strictly en- 
forced the laws against liquor selling 
that it was unnecessary to send en- 
forcement deputies into that section of 
the State. 



In the Legislature of 1905 a resolve 
w T as introduced for an amendment to 
the constitution by abrogating and an- 
nulling Amendment Five, adopted on 
the eighth day of September, 1884, re- 
lating to the sale and manufacture of 
intoxicating liquors. The vote in the 
Senate was 15 against, and 3 in favor 
of the resolve. It was lost in the 
House by vote of 128 against the 
measure. 

This same Legislature passed a bill 
entitled, "An act providing penalties 
for non-feasance cf duty by sheriffs, 
deputy sheriffs, and county attorneys." 

The sheriffs in all the counties were 
given a chance to enforce the law, 
against the liquor traffic. It soon be- 
came evident that in some counties the 
local authorities did not intend to stop 
the open sale of liquor, some of them 
apparently trying to justify themselves 
on the plea that it was against the 
sentiment of the people. The Sturgis 
deputies were sent into such parts of 
the State as it was found possessed of- 
ficers derelict in their duty, and there 
was at once a change in conditions. 
The open places were closed, and the 
traffic driven into dives, and the hands 
of pocket peddlers. 

In some of the counties where the 
Sturgis deputies had been most active, 
there rose a great . hue and cry 
against the enforcement act. It was. 
claimed that it was un-Democratic, 
un-Republican and un-American, and 
some of the politicians predicted that 
the law passed by the Republican par- 
ty would cause its defeat in the next 
State election. The matter aroused a 
general discussion in the press, and in 
the pulpit, and in many other organiz- 
ations. 

Gov. Cobb at Deering Club. 

Upon invitation of the Deering Re- 
publican Club Governor Cobb delivered 
an address before that body on Sat- 
urday, April 7, 1906. The Governor de- 
voted his speech to a consideration of 
the Sturgis Enforcement Act. In be- 
ginning his speech the Governor said 
that inasmuch as this was a political 
and Republican organization, it would 
give him an opportunity to discuss the 
political situation as it then existed. 
The Governor said that he proposed to 
analyze carefully the questions in- 
volved in the coming election, with a 
regard to the material and moral wel- 
fare of Maine. He alluded to the fact 
that Republicans had met losses in the 
annual spring elections, and that these 
reverses were attributed to the enact- 
ment by a Republican Legislature, of 
the so-called Sturgis Law. He said 
that personally while he believed the 
Sturgis law to be the chief cause of the 
unrest, that it was not the only cause; 
that there were other contributa: y 
causes. The Governor then proceeded 
to &a,v: 



70 



"In the Summer of 1904 the Republi- 
can State Convention met at Bangor 
and after a spirited contest honored 
me with the nomination for Governor. 
For many years the Republican party 
had professed to be the particular and 
sole champion of temperance legisla- 
tion in this State. It assumed credit 
for having enacted the stringent pro- 
hibitory laws placed from time to time 
upon the statute books, and asked for 
and confidently expected to receive the 
moral support and votes of all be- 
lievers in the theory that the State and 
the individual would be benefited by 
making the sale of liquor for tippling 
purposes illegal. 

The Republican party was proud to 
be called the temperance party, and it 
grew in strength and numbers. For 
years in every State convention, and 
almost without exception in every 
County convention, it passed resolu- 
tions reaffirming and reiterating its 
allegiance to the cause of both temper- 
ance and prohibition, and it prospered. 
It vigorously repelled all idea of resub- 
mission, and overwhelmingly defeated 
all attempts in the Legislature to al- 
low the people to register again at the 
polls their faith or disbelief in the con- 
tinuance of the Prohibitory Laws. 

I am sure I do not exaggerate when 
I say that for 25 years in the minds of 
most people, prohibition has been the 
cardinal principle of the Republican 
party in its relations to State issues. I 
will go further and say that men fa- 
miliar with State politics will agree 
that had any candidate for State office 
during that period arisen in a Repub- 
lican State convention and declared 
himself to be in favor of resubmission 
and opposed to prohibition, he would 
have been denied peremptorily the 
denomination he sought. 

Evidences of Unrest. 

A few years prior to 1904, however, 
evidences of unrest appeared, and there 
were signs that the Republican party 
might not be altogether sincere in its 
advocacy of prohibition. In certain lo- 
calities under Republican control the 
law was openly and flagrantly nulli- 
fied. In more than one-third of the 
counties of the State Democratic sher- 
iffs had been elected, and the reason 
given was that the voters in those 
counties had become disgusted with 
the inefficiency and insincerity of Re- 
publican officials and had manifested 
their dissatisfaction by electing Dem- 
ocratic sheriffs. It is only fair r.o say, 
too, that several of the Democratic 
sheriffs after election enforced the law 
more vigorously than had been done 
by their Republican predecessors. Re- 
publicans throughout the State were 
alarmed and the general impression 
seemed to be that it was absolutely 
imperative for party success that the 
people of the State of Maine should 
understand that the Republican party 



was still the firm champion of prohibi- 
tion and enforcement. This in brief 
was the condition of affairs in the 
Summer of 1904. 

At the Bangor convention a plank 
was adopted, most explicit and com- 
prehensive in its language, declaring 
without any evasion whatever, that the 
Republican party believed in and stood 
for the maintenance of the Prohibitory 
Laws and their rigid, honest and im- 
partial enforcement. 

It was upon that platform that I was 
nominated and I accepted its state- 
ments squarely and without reserve. 
As soon as the campaign opened I took 
the stump. In every county where I 
spoke I was urged by the Republican 
leaders to state that if elected I would 
do everything in my power to enforce 
the Prohibitory Laws. Many of those 
leaders told me that unless the voters 
could be made to believe that the Re- 
publican party was honest and sincere 
in its professions upon that subject, 
there was grave danger of losing their 
respective counties. In every place I 
spoke I not only said that if elected I 
would use every legal right and moral 
influence that belonged to the office of 
Governor to enforce those laws, but 
stated further that I asked for no 
man's vote unless he believed I would 
honestly try to do what I had said. 

It is true that presidential election 
was pending and I presume National 
issues had much to do with the result, 
but so far as I was concerned, I con- 
fined myself wholly to State issues and 
made the fight more upon the prohibi- 
tory question than anything else. The 
result in the iState was a Republican 
victory by a plurality of about 27,000, 
and it was generally conceded that the 
principal factor of success was the re- 
established belief in the minds of the 
people that the Republican party 
meant what it said upon this particu- 
lar question. Surely I betrayel no 
confidences, nor did I secure the office 
by any false pretences. If the people 
believed what I said they knew what 
to expect. I meant what I said and 
believed that the party intended to 
take its platform seriously. 

When the Legislature assembled I 
took it for granted that there would 
be some legislation giving for the first 
time to an executive, authority to en- 
force this particular law, and I sup- 
posed that authority would come as 
a result of the evils of nullification 
that everyone could see and that every 
good citizen must deplore. I be- 
lieved it was outrageous to see a law 
of such importance violated in so 
■many towns and cities of the State, 
and felt that such a course was doing 
incalculable injury 'to the welfare of 
Maine. 

By what right should a certain class 
of -men be protected and allowed to 
prosper in an illegal business. Every 
individual attempting to do any other 



71 



kind of 'business was forced to do it, 
and in most cases wanted to do it, 
within 'the law, but here was a busi- 
ness where certain men seemed su- 
perior to the law and this in itself 
appeared to me to be a grave injus- 
tice. 

All law was being- brought into dis- 
repute and disregard, and there was 
neither sense nor logic in nullification. 
As a citizen I never have stood, and 
as a citizen or executive I never will 
stand for nullification of law. I had 
supposed that my election if it meant 
anything meant a protest against 
nullification, and it was for this rea- 
son I confidently expected legislation 
to remedy it. I believed that the Re- 
publican party would keep faith with 
the people, and that it would stand 
on its platform because it was right 
to do so. 

Prior to the passage of the Sturgis 
law there was no provision whereby 
the executive could attempt to en- 
force the prohibitory laws, and this 
question was presented to me by the 
Legislature and by public sentiment 
in a way that it had never been pre- 
sented to any of my predecessors. I 
never heard of the Sturgis bill until 
one day shortly after the opening of 
the Legislature. Senator Sturgis canie 
to the executive chamber and ex- 
plained its provisions to me, and I 
never knew until that day that any- 
one had been at work, was at work 
or intended to work in behalf of a 
measure of similar intent or import. 
If anyone else is the author of that 
law I do not know it. 

I told Senator Sturgis that in many 
respects the law was not an ideal one. 
It seemed to me that the people of 
Maine anight not altogether approve 
of the idea of giving to 
the executive authority over 

county officials, but I was abso- 
lutely in favor of some law strong 
enough to prevent or minimize nulli- 
fication, and I stated to everyone who 
talked with me about the Sturgic bill 
that if no better measure could be 
found it was acceptable to me and 
I believed would answer the purpose. 
I did everything I properly could do 
to insure the passage of the Sturgis 
bill, and in so doing believed then and 
believe now that the Republican par- 
ty was keeping faith with the people, 
and that I was doing the same. 

It is only fair to say that some of 
the oldest and most sagacious leaders 
of the Republican party while believ- 
ing in Prohibition and enforcement 
questioned the wisdom of passing the 
Sturgis bill. They predicted just such 
difficulties as have followed. They 
may have been right but I could not 
agree with them then and do not 
agree with them now. 

It may or may not have been the 
wisest measure which could have been 
drafted; each one, of course, has 



a right to his own individual opinion 
on that question. It was, however, 
the only measure which was offered 
and one directly in line with the 
promises of the party. 

It has_ become recently somewhat 
the fashion to criticise certain people 
because of their belief in the Sturgis 
law and their support of the meas- 
ure. So far as I am concerned I 
have no apologies or excuses to make, 
for I welcomed it, believed in it and 
worked for it. 

In this same address the Govern- 
or also said: 

As a Republican I appreciate the 
fact that an undoubted crisis is now 
facing our party, but courage, united 
effort and consistency will again put 
our opponents to rout. As an execu- 
tive, while fully realizing that my of- 
ficial action in connection with the 
Sturgis law and enforcement has 
brought condemnation from many, 
caused regrets from friends whose 
judgment and friendship I value, and 
invited the charge that I am responsi- 
ble to the same extent that the Stur- 
gis law is responsible for present con- 
ditions. I can only say that I could 
not see my way clear to follow any 
other course. The Republican party 
made its platform, and as candidate 
for Governor I promised to support 
its declaration of principles. A Re- 
publican Legislature enacted the Stur- 
gis law and as Governor I had taken 
an oath to endeavor to enforce all 
laws. 

I am profoundly grateful for all the 
honor the Republican party has con- 
ferred upon rne, and I have done my 
best to be true to my oath of office, 
to my party and to myself. I had 
hoped to so conduct the affairs of my 
administration as to enjoy the con- 
fidence of my party and the respect 
of the people of Maine, but I will 
willingly forfeit both if they are to 
won and retained only by forgotten 
promises and broken oaths. If the 
party has made a mistake in its plat- 
form or candidate the remendy is in 
own hands, but so long as I am Gov- 
ernor of Maine I shall oppose nulli- 
fication, shall insist upon law enforce- 
ment, and so long as the Sturgis law 
remains on our statute, books and of- 
ficials fail to do their duty, shall use 
that law to enforce prohibition with 
all the power, influence and resources 
at my command. 



LETTER XXXIII. 

EFFECT OF GOV. COBB'S SPEECH. 

AUGUSTA, Feb. 3.— (Special corres- 
pondence.)^This speech of Governor 
Cobb gave the friends of Prohibition, 
and all those who were opposed to 
nullification of laws, new courage. It 
was admitted by fair-minded men of 
all parties that the address was an 



72 



impartial and an able presentation of 
actual conditions. 

There was a great deal of talk 
throughout the State in relation to re- 
submission. The Democrats met in 
Bangor and nominated for the second 
time Cyrus W. Davis of Waterville. 
Their platform took a positive stand 
in favor of resubmission. 

The Republican convention met in 
Portland and was presided over by 
United States Senator William P. Frye 
There was a discussion in the con- 
vention in relation to the advisability 
of declaring in favor of resubmission, 
but the convention took a decided 
stand in favor of Prohibition, the plank 
about this matter, reading: 

"We believe in Prohibition and de- 
mand the faithful and impartial en- 
forcement of the Prohibitory Law, be- 
cause the business interests of the 
State and the material and moral wel- 
fare of the people, are thereby pro- 
moted. We hold that submission to the 
law is the highest duty of the citizen, 
and that good citizenship seeks the 
enforcement of all laws, at all times — 
nullification, never." 

The campaign of that year was 
fought out upon the question of re- 
submission, other State issues also be- 
ing involved. The Republican s-peakers 
defended the Prohibitory theory, and 
spoke in favor of continuing the policy 
of strict enforcement of laws against 
the liquor traffic, while the Democrats 
took a most positive stand upon the 
opposite side of the question. Never 
was the whole matter more exhaust- 
ively discussed upon the stump. 
through the press,and by the people 
generally. 

The total vote was a large one. It 
was 133,500, of which Governor Cobb 
received 69,427, Cyrus W. Davis, 61,363; 
H. Woodward, Prohibitionism, 1,133: 
Charles L. Fox, Socialist, 1,561, and 
scattering, 26. 

The Republican vote had fallen off 
7,536 as compared with the election of 
1904, and the Democratic vote had in- 
creased 11,207. The vote of the latter 
party was the largest since 1888, when 
61,348 votes were cast for William L. 
Putnam. 

Upon the assembling of the Legis- 
lature the question of Prohibition and 
the Sturgis enforcement law were up- 
permost in the minds of the Legisla- 
tors, Governor Cobb, in his address to 
the Legislature, said: 

Gov. Cobb to Legislature. 

"Two years ago speaking in this 
place and under similar circumstances, 
I ventured the assertion that the pub- 
lic condition resulting from the nullifi- 
cation of the Prohibitory Law was the 
greatest issue confronting the people 
of Maine. The representatives of the 
people met that issue, recognized its 
importance and the Sturgis law was 
enacted, a measure designed for no 
purpose other than to correct or lessen 



the evils of nullification. Under its 
provisions the Enforcement Com- 
mission was appointed, and for about 
eighteen months Maine has witnessed 
the unusual spectacle of men clothed 
with legal authority but operating di- 
rectly through Executive option and 
initiative, performing some of the 
functions of certain officials elected 
by popular vote, who either wilfully or 
lacking both courage and ability have 
neglected the duties imposed upon 
them by their oath of office. Probably 
no single piece of Legislation placed 
on our Statute Books has ever caused 
so much general discussion or created 
such intense and bitter differences of 
opinion and dissensions as the Sturgis 
law. I cherish no illusions in regard 
to it. I know it is condemned by many 
as false in principle and contrary to 
the spirit of our istitutions, expensive, 
inefficient, the outgrow T th of political 
necessty and the last desperate at- 
tempt of fanaticism to check the swell- 
ing movement for a liberal and cosmo- 
politan treatment of the liquor prob- 
lem. I know that a hostile sentiment 
hastens to censure not only the law it- 
self but the men charged with its en- 
forcement and their methods. Their 
failures are magnified and ridiculed, 
their successes overlooked or belittled, 
their sincerity of purpose and honesty 
of motive openly and often maliciously 
questioned, and the belief assiduously 
cultivated and encouraged that they are 
the known disturbers of the peace, the 
real energies of order. But these argu- 
ments, criticisms and accusations are 
neither unanswerable nor unassailable. 
Many of them are palpably superficial 
and unfair, and the Sturgis law will 
stand or fall by a fair presentation of 
the facts and their rigorous analysis, 
not by the demands of a self-interest- 
ed prejudice or the exigencies and 
hopes of any political party. 

"There will be placed before you at 
an early date by the Enforcement 
Commission a full and complete re- 
port of the operation of this law and a 
statement of all the expense attending 
it. Upon its publication it is to be ex- 
pected that this whole question will be 
opened for debate by the members of 
this assembly and this debate will be 
welcomed by all. At the present time 
the Deputy Enforcement Commission- 
ers are withdrawn from all the Coun- 
ties. This course was simply an act of 
justice to the incoming sheriffs, and 
the insinuation that it was prompted 
by any other motive might have been 
withheld in all fairness until a later 
date. If it becomes apparent that the 
local officials intend to permit or re- 
sume a policy of non-enforcement and 
the services of the Deputy Commis- 
sioners are not again brought into re- 
quisition, there will then be ample 
opportunity for just and timely critic- 
ism. 



"The essential features of the Stur- 
gis law are clear and its purposes ob- 
vious. I have yet to hear any sound 
argument in behalf of nullification of 
law, and but few men have had the 
temerity to openly advocate it. All 
will agree to the proposition that the 
local officials should enforce the Pro- 
hibitory Law in the first instance, but 
if they fail to do this and it is known 
that they have failed, the fact still 
stands that the law is nullified and 
needs vindication by some other 
means. When this question was before 
the last Legislature there were three 
ways by which the nullification of the 
Prohibitory Law could have been pre- 
vented; first, by dutiful action of the 
local officials; second, by the repeal of 
the Prohibitory Law itself involving 
resubmission and the adoption of some 
method of license to regulate the li- 
quor traffic, and third, by the authori- 
zation and exercise of powers similar 
to those granted the Enforcement 
Commissioners under the Sturgis law. 
The local officials could not or would 
not act, prohibition continued to be the 
policy of the State and a trial of the 
Sturgis law was imperative. I am at- 
tempting to discuss the measure pure- 
ly as a means to prevent nullification, 
and believe that a large majority of 
the law-abiding citizens of the State 
irrespective of party substantially 
agree that the law was necessary and 
that it has justified its existence. The 
day of open and easy nullification of 
the Prohibitory Law has passed in 
Maine. Public sentiment and all the 
moral forces of the State have been 
aroused and arrayed against it and it 
will never return. With all the clamor 
against the expense of the Sturgis law, 
with all the out-cry alleging political 
trickery, insincerity and cowardice on 
the part of its sponsors and its offi- 
cials, I still hold to the opinion that 
the people of Maine believe that nulli- 
fication is infinitely worse than any 
law which seeks to prevent it, and re- 
spectfully submit that it is incumbent 
upon every man who believes in the 
principle of law-enforcement as in- 
dispensable to the cause of good gov- 
ernment, and good citizenship, to sup- 
port the Sturgis law or to propose and 
support some other measure which will 
advance that cause as well. 

"The attempt to secure a better en- 
forcement of the Prohibitory Law by 
means of the enforcement commission 
has brought the resubmission question 
into such prominence that a failure to 
refer to it in this address would in- 
vite grave misunderstanding. The 
statement will stand unchallenged that 
speculation on the action this Legisla- 
ture may take in dealing with resub- 
mission is causing more comment and 
exciting more interest than any other 
topic of public moment in Maine. I 
enter upon a brief diceussion of this 



question with reluctance, not because 
of the lack of convictions or an un- 
willingness to express them, but sim- 
ply because of the doubt in my mind 
as to my ability to present some of its 
phases without violating the proprie- 
ties of an occasion upon which refer- 
ences to party politics are neither ex- 
pected nor desired. 

"Every thoughtful and fair minded 
student of political conditions in 
Maine must admit that there is a very 
strong sentiment in favor of the 
proposition to give the voters an op- 
portunity to express at the polls their 
opinion of the present Prohibitory Law. 
While this sentiment may not be that 
of the majority now, it surely is held 
by a very large minority of our citi- 
zens, and the results of the Septem- 
ber elections last year seems to fur- 
nish a complete justification of this 
conclusion. It is true that the tem- 
perance legislation on our statute 
books was placed there during the dom- 
ination of one political party, and it is 
also true that nearly every person op- 
posed to the Prohibitory Law and its 
enforcement favors resubmission. But 
it may be asserted with equal truth 
that a belief in the Prohibitory Law is 
not confined to the adherents of either 
of the two great parties and that the 
desire for resubmission is not confined 
to the enemies of that law. There are 
many men, earnest and sincere in 
their advocacy and support of temper- 
ance and enforced prohibition who be- 
lieve those principles will be jeopard- 
ized by their resubmission to the peo- 
ple under the only method by which 
this can be accomplished at this time. 
To them the cause of prohibition is of 
far greater importance than the suc- 
cess either of Republicanism or De- 
mocracy, and to promote and conserve 
that cause they organized and main- 
tained the Prohibition party. But they 
cheerfully sacrificed their own organ- 
ization in behalf of the greater princi- 
ple, and allying themselves with an- 
other party because of its promise to 
enforce the Prohibitory Law and its 
opposition to resubmission, contributed 
largely to its success. These men fee] 
that resubmisson granted by this Leg- 
islature would be a distinct and un- 
pardonable betraval by the dominant 
party of many who worked for and 
helped to achieve its victory. They in- 
sist that resubmission in its proposed 
form is a blow to prohibition and an 
attack on temperance, and refuse to 
endorse the suggestion that the people 
are entitled to vote on an amendment 
to the constitution when a very large 
number have unquestionably signified 
a desire to that effect. 

"It is extremely unfortunate for 
what I conceive to be the true cause of 
temperance that a resolution to resub- 
mit the prohibitory amendment must 
be in form at least a practical con- 



demnation by the Legislature of the 
present policy of prohibition, and not 
the authorization of a simple referen- 
dum to ascertain the people's views. 
"Were it not for this fact and the prob- 
able effect that the mere passage of 
such a resolution would have upon the 
friends of the prohibitory movement 
everywhere, I believe there would be 
little or no opposition to the reasona- 
ble, plain and unencumbered proposi- 
tion to place the original question be- 
fore the voters again for their approv- 
al or rejection. If that particular and 
important objection could be removed 
and the question be referred to the 
people directly, solely on its merits and 
unhampered by the prejudice excited 
by premature and unnecessary legis- 
lative condemnation, the citizens of 
Maine would rally to reaffirm their be- 
lief in the Prohibitory Law, and the 
cause of temperance be infinitely 
strengthened and advanced. For if 
we accept the principle of the referen- 
dum we must recognize the fact that 
its fundamental strength lies in the 
right of an appeal to the people, and 
no good cause if fairly and properly 
presented should hesitate to enter that 
court or should fear its verdict." 



LETTER XXXIV- 

ATTEMPT TO REPEAL STURGIS LAW. 

AUGUSTA, Feb. 4.— (Special corres- 
pondence).— The Legislature of 1907 
took up the question of the repeal of 
the Sturgis law, of resubmission, and 
the matter of abolishing or changing 
the laws governing the liquor agency. 
In the House the matter of changing 
the fifth amendment of the Constitu- 
tion came up, upon motion of Mr. 
Newbert of Augusta, to adopt the mi- 
nority report of the committee on. 
temperance, reporting ought to pass 
on resolve for an amednment to th« 
constitution, by abrogating and annul- 
ing the amendment. There was a long 
discussion, and then Mr. Davies of 
Yarmouth called for the yeas and nay.o 
and the motion was lost by vote of 73 
to 68. 

Those who voted yea were Messrs. 
Allan, Dennysville; Allen, Mt. Ver- 
non; Alien, Richmond; Brawn, Brown, 
'Copeland, Cyr, Davidson. Dondero, 
Donigan, Duncan, Dunton, Edwards, 
Farnham, Flaherty, Frost, Gallagher, 
Harriman, Harris, Harthorn, Milford; 
Hibbard, Higgins. Johnson, Water- 
ville; Jordan, Kelley, Lane, Leader, 
Leighton, Lowe, Lynch. Martin. Ban- 
gor; McClutchy, McKinney, Michaud. 
Minahane, Montgomery, Moore, Mor- 
neau, Mullen, Murphy, Newbert, 
Noyes, Perry, Randolph; Pike, Pink- 
ham, Pooler Preston, Scates. Skidmore. 
Skillin, Smith, Lisbon; Snow, Spear, 
Stevens, Jonesport; Stover, Strickland, 



Stuart, Tarbox, Thomas, Harpswell: 
Tolman, Glenburn; Tolman, Portland; 
True, Tucker, Waldron, Portland, 
Walker, Wardwell, Weld, Witham— 68. 

Those who voted nay were Messrs. 
Allen, Columbia Falls, Baldwin, Bar- 
rows, Brackett, Charles, Chase, Clark, 
Cobb, Colcord, Crosby, Davies, Davis, 
Decker, Dow, Dyer, Emery, Farrar, 
Folsom, Fulton, Giddings, Gleason, 
Goodwin. Gordon, HacUock, Hall, Cari- 
bou; Hall, Dover; Haskell, Hathorn, 
Detroit; Havey, Hawkes, Herrick, Hill, 
Machias; Hill, Monticello Irving, Ja- 
cobs, Johnson, Calais, Joy, Kendall, 
Knowlton, LaBree, Langley, Libby, 
Lord, Loring, Lovejoy, Martin, Rum- 
ford, Mayo, Merriman, Merrill, Merry, 
Milliken. Newcomb, Oram, Peacock, 
Perkins, Alfred; Perkins, Kennebunk- 
port; Perry, Ft. Fairfield; Powers, 
Reynolds, Safford, Smith, Patten; 
Sprague, Stearns, Stevens, Portage 
Lake; Stubbs, Theriault, Thomas, 
Howland; Titcomb, Waldron, Dexter, 
Whitehouse, Wight, Wood, Young— 73. 

Those who were absent were: Messrs. 
Baker, Blanchard, EJmerson, Horigan, 
Newton, Weeks— 6. 

The following pair was announced: 

Mr. Grinnell, yes, with Mr. Danforth, 
no. 

On motion of Mr. Milliken of Island 
Falls, the majority report was ac- 
cepted in non-concurrence and sent to 
the Senate. 

In the Senate, the matter of abrogat- 
ing and annulling the fifth amend- 
ment to the constitution came up, and 
on motion of Mr. Brown of Kennebec, 
the minority report that the resolve 
ought to pass, was substituted for the 
majority report that the resolve ought 
not to pass. 

The yeas and nays were taken. 
Those who voted in the affirmative 
were: Ayer, Barrows, Brown, Clarke, 
Foss, Garcelon, Parkhurst, Philoon, 
Heselton, Proctor, Simpson, Staples, 
Stearns, Theriault, Merrill— 16. 

Those who voted in the negative 
were: Bailey, Eaton, Houston, Irving, 
Libby, Mills, Page, ?utnam, Rice, Wy- 
man — 10. 

Mr. Hastings stated that he was 
paired with Mr. Sewall of Sagadahoc, 
who would vote "yes" if he were pres- 
ent. He (Mr. Hastings) would vote 
"no." 

Mr. Deasy of Hancock stated that 
he was paired with Mr. Curtis of Cum- 
berland, who would vote "yes" if he 
were present. He (Mr. Deasy) would 
vote "no" 

The matter of the changing of laws 
governing liquor agency, or abolish- 
ing the system, caused a great deal 
of interest and discussion in this leg- 
islature. In the closing hours of the 
session the House without division 
voted to abolish the entire system; but 
the Senate refused to concur. This 
discussion, however, resulted in the 



appointment of a special committee to 
investigate this matter, and to report 
to Governor Cobb. The committee 
performed this duty, and so reported. 
The question of the repeal of the 
Sturgis law came also before the 
House, by way of majority and mi- 
nority reports of the committee on 
temperance, reporting "ought not to 
pass" and "ought to pass" on bill, "An 
act to repeal Chapter 92 of the laws 
of 1905, entitled an act to provide for 
the better enforcement of the laws, 
against the sale and manufacture of 
intoxicating liquors." Mr. Newbert 
of Augusta moved that the minority 
report be substituted for the majority 
report. 

The question being upon the substi- 
tution of the minority for the majority 
report, the motion prevailed by a vote 
of 79 to 50. 

Those who voted yea were: 
Messrs. Allan, Dennysville; Allen, 
Mt. Vernon; Baldwin, Brawn, Brown, 
Charles, Copeland, Cyr, Davidson, Da- 
vis, Decker, Dondero, Donigan, Dun- 
can, Dunton, Edwards, Emery, Parn- 
ham, Folsom, Flaherty, Fulton, Galla- 
gher, Grinnell, Hall, Dover; Harriman, 
Harthorn, Milford; Hathorn, Detroit; 
Harvey, Hibbard, Higgins, Horigan, 
Jacobs, Johnson, Waterville; Jordan, 
Kelley La Bree, Lane, Leighton, Lowe, 
Lynch, Martin, Bangor; MoCIutchy, 
McKinney, Merriman, Merry, Mont- 
gomery, Morneau, Mullen, Murphy, 
Newbert, Newcomb, Noyes, Perry, 
Randolph; Pike, pooler, Preston, Rey- 
nolds, Safford, Seates, Skidmore, Skill- 
in, Smith, Lisbon; Snow, Spear, Ste- 
vens, Jonesport; Stover, Strickland, 
Tarbox, Thomas, Harpswell, Toiman, 
Glenburn; Toiman, Portland; True, 
Tucker, Waldron, Portland; Walker, 
Weeks, Weld, Witham, Young— 79. 
Those Who voted nay were Messrs. 
Allen, Columbia Falls, Allen, Rich- 
mond, Barrows, Chase, Clark, Cobb, 
Colcord, Crosby, Danforth, Davies, 
Dow, Dyer, Emerson, Gleason, Gor- 
don, Hadlock, Hall, Caribou; Harris, 
Haskell, Hawkes, Herrick, Hill, Mon- 
ticello, Irving, Joy, Kendall, Langley, 
Libby, Lord, Loring, Lovejoy, Mar- 
tin, Rumford; Mayo, Milliken, New- 
ton, Peacock, Perkins, Alfred; Per- 
kins, Kennebunkport; Perry, Fort 
Fairfield, Powers, Smith, Patten; 
Sprague, Stearns, Stevens , Portage 
Lake, Stubbs, Theriault, Thomas, 
Howland; Waldron, Dexter; White- 
house, Wight, Wood — 50. 

Those who were absent, Messrs. 
Barker, Blanchard, Brackett, Farrar, 
Frost, Giddings, Goodwin, Hill, Ma- 
chias; Josnson, Calais; Knowlton, 
Leader, Merrill, Minahane, Moore, 
Oram, Pinkham, Stuart, Titcomg, 
Ward well— 19. 

On motion of Mr. Newbert of Au- 
gusta, the bill was read three times, 
under suspension of rules, passed to 
be engrossed, and sent to the Senate. 



The vote in the Senate was: Af- 
firmative, Ayer, BaiHey, Barrows, 
Curtis, Deasy, Foss, Garcelon, 

Merrill, Page, Provtor, Sewall, 
Stearns, Tarte, Wyman. Negative, 
Brown, Clarke, Eaton, Hastings, 
Heselton, Houston, Irving, Libby, 
Mills, Putnam, Rice, Simpson, Theri- 
ault. 

Those absent were: Parkhurst, 

Philoon, Staples— 3. 

Governor's Veto Message. 

The bill for repeal having passed 
both branches of the Legislature, the 
matter went to the Governor, and he 
sent the following veto message to 
the House: 

State of Maine. 
Executive Department. 
To the Honorable House of Repre- 
sentatives : 

I have examined House bill entitled 
"An act to repeal chapter 92 of the 
Laws of 1905, entitled, 'An act to pro- 
vide for the better enforcement of the 
laws against the sale and manufacture 
of intoxicating liquors,' " and respect- 
fully return the same herewith with- 
out my approval. 

This bill seeks to repeal that piece 
of legislation commonly known as the 
Sturgis Law. I was nominated for 
and elected to the office of Governor 
by a political party that in its plat- 
form made the following declaration: 
"Good citizenship seeks the enforce- 
ment of all law at all times; nullifica- 
tion never." A repeal of the Sturgis 
law without substituting any similar 
or equally effective measure takes 
from the Executive all power to en- 
force the Prohibitory Law when nec- 
essary and in my judgment protects 
and encourages the nullification of all 
law. I cannot assent to this propo- 
sition and, therefore, I decline to sign 
the bill. 

(Signed) 

WILLIAM T. COBB. 
Governor of the State of Maine. 

Dated March 28th, 1907. 

On motion of Mr. Weeks of Fair- 
field, the vote was reconsidered where- 
by the bill was passed to be enacted. 

Mr. Weeks moved that the main 
question be now put and that it be 
taken as provided by the Constitu- 
tion, by a yea and nay vote. 

The Speaker: Under ttie Constitu- 
tion, where a veto is announced by the 
Governor, it is necessary that a yea 
and a nay vote be taken, and the 
question is, shall this bill become a 
law notwithstanding the objections of 
the Governor. All those in favor of 
this bill becoming a law, in other 
word s>, of abolishing the Sturgis bill, 
will say yes when their names are 
called; those opposed will say no. 
The clerk will call the roll. 

Those who voted yea were: 

Messrs. Allan, Dennysville; Allen, 
Mt. "Vernon; Brawn, Brown, Copeland, 



70 



Davidson, Davis, Dondero, Duncan, 
Duncan, Dunton, Edwards, Farnham, 
Folsom, Frost, Gallagher, Giddings, 
Grinnell, Harriman, Harris, Harthorn, 
Milford; Havey, Hibbard, Higgins, 
Horigan, Johnson, Waterville; Jordan, 
Kelley, La Bree, Lane, eighton, Lowe, 
Lynch, McClutchy, Montgomery, Mor- 
neau, Mullen , Murphy, Newbert, 
Noyes, Pike, Pooler, Scates, Skid- 
rnoire, Skillin, Smith, Lisbon; Snow, 
Spear, Stevens, Jonesport; Stover, 
Strickland, Stuart, Tarbox, Thomas, 
Harpswell; Tolman, Portland; True, 
Tucker, Waldron, Portland; Walker, 
War dwell, Weld, Witham— 61. 

Those who voted nay were Messrs. 
Allen, Richmond; Baldwin, Brackett, 
Chase, Cobb, Colcord, Crosby, Dan- 
forth. Davies Decker, Dow, Dyer, 
Emerson, Emery, Farrar, Fulton, Glea 
©on, Goodwin, Gordon, Hadlock, Hall, 
Caribou, Hall, Dover, Haskell, Hathorn 
Detroit: Hawkes, Herrick, Hill, Ma- 
chias; Hill, Monticello; Irving, Ja- 
cobs, Kendall, Knowlton, Langley, 
Lord, Loring, Lovejoy, Mayo, Merri- 
man, Milliken, Newcomb, Newton, 
Oram, Perkins, Alfred; Perkins, Ken- 
nebunkport; Perry, Randolph; Pow- 
ers, Reynolds, Smith, Patten; Sprague, 
Stearns, Stevens, Portage Lake; 
•Stubbs, Thomas, Howland; Waldron, 
Dexter; Weeks, Whitehouse, Wight, 
Wood, Young. — 59. 

Those who were absent were Messrs. 
Allen, Columbia Falls; Barker, Bar- 
rows, Blanchard, Charles, Clark, Cyr, 
Donigan, Flaherty, Johnson, Calais. 
Leader Martin. Bangor; Martin, Rum- 
ford; Merrill, Merry, Minahane, Moore, 
Peacock, Pinkham, Preston, Safford, 
Theriault, Titcomb, Tolmam, Glenburn 
—24. 

Sixty-one having voted yes and 59 
no, the veto was sustained. 

The following pairs were announced: 
Joy, no, with Perry of Fort Fairfield, 
yes. 

Libby, no, with McKinney, yes. 

The vote in the Senate, on the ques- 
tion of passing over the Governor's 
veto, was: Yea, Bailey, Barrows, Dea- 
sy, Foss, Garcelon, Merrill, Page, 
Parkhurst, Philoon, Proctor, Sewall, 
Stearns, Tarte, Wyman — 15. 

Negative, Brown, Eaton. Hastings, 
Irving. Libby, Mills, Putnam, Theri- 
ault.— 8. 

Mr. Curtis of Cumberland state i 
that he was paired with Mr. Simpson 
of York he (Mr. Curtis) would vote 
"yes", and Mr. Simpson would vote 
"no." It was not a vote that the bill 
should become a law. 

Those absent were: Clarke, Heselton. 
Houston, Rice, Simpson, Staples. 

Senator Heselton afterwards stated 
in the Senate that if he had been pres- 
ent when the vote was taken, he 
would have voted to sustain the veto. 



LETTER XXXV- 

EARLY RECORDS OF EFFECT OF 
LICENSE AND PROHIBITION. 

AUGUSTA, Feb. 5, (Special Cor- 
respondence). — The first Prohibitory 
Law recorded is found in Genesis 
2:16, 17; "And the Lord commanded 
the man, saying, of every tree of the 
garden thou mayest freely eat; but 
of the tree of the knowledge of good 
and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for 
in the day that thou eatest thereof, 
thou shalt surely die." 

Throughout all the Scriptures there 
are numerous prohibitory laws, nine 
of the ten commandments being such. 
Speaking of these Scripture laws, 
Blackstone says: "They are in obliga- 
tion superior to any other. No human 
laws are of any validity if contrary 
to them." 

Dating 550 years before the time of 
Christ there was a law of Buddha 
which says, "Not to use intoxicating 
liquors or drugs." Mahomet prohibit- 
ed the use of intoxicating liquors also. 
The ancient German tribe of Suevians 
over two thousand years ago had a law 
which prohibited the bringing of wines 
into their territory. Thsv did this 
because they declared that "it enervat- 
ed the mind, and unfitted the body for 
exercise or labor." 

Nearly one hundred years ago the 
Society of Friends passed a law by 
which they disowned a member who 
"persisted in importing or vending 
ardent spirits," and even prohibited 
their members from selling grain or 
other produce if it were to b< 1 . distilled. 

As early as 1802 the Congress of the 
United States enacted a law which 
gave the President the authority to 
use his own judgment in adopting any 
necessary measures to prohibit the 
sale of any intoxicating liquors to the 
Indian tribes. These laws were amend- 
ed in 1815 and again in 1822. 

It is admitted that people have a 
right to prohibit that which is a nui- 
sance. Blackstone, one of the great- 
est commentaries upon the law who 
ever lived, declared that it was a set- 
tled principle that a man may him- 
self remove a private nuisance provid- 
ed he caused no riot by it. And that 
a public nuisance could be removed by 
a proper process of law. Blackstone 
after enumerating such nuisances as 
society has the right to abate, said: 
"So clearly does the law of England 
enforce that excellent rule of gospel 
morality, of doing to others as we 
would they should do unto ourselves." 
In another place Blackstone says: "All 
disorderly inns, or alehouses, bawdy 
houses, gaming houses, stage plays un- 
licensed, booths and stages for rope 
dances, montebanks, and the like, are 
public nuisances." 

Kent, the great .authority upon 
American law, says: "The Govern- 
ment may, by general regulations, in- 



77 



terdiet such usages or property as 
would create nuisances, and 'become 
dangerous to the lives, or health, or 
peace or comfort of the citizens.. Un- 
wholesome trades, slaughter houses, 
operations offensive to the senses, the 
deposit of powder, the building of 
combustible materials, and the burial 
of the dead may be interdicted by 
law, in the midst of dense masses of 
population, on the general and ration- 
al principle that every person ought 
to use his property as not to injure 
his neighbors, and that private inter- 
ests must be made subservient to 
tihe -general interests of the commu- 
nity." 

When, therefore, the forefathers 
took the position that the sale of in- 
toxicating liquors was a public nui- 
sance, 'and that the people had a right 
to prohibit rather than to restrict and 
regulate, they did so not without 
precedent. That a state has the right 
to prohibit the sale of intoxicating 
liquors is now a firmly established 
principle of law. The early advocates 
of prohibit ion did not stop to argue 
that it was wrong to prevent men by 
law from drinking what they please. 
They did, however, take the position 
that the state shall not authorize them 
to manufacture and sell what they 
please. 

Early Records. 

Allusion has already been made in 
these articles to the fact that in the 
early history of the State the condi- 
tions were such that those who were 
deeply interested in the temperance, 
-morality and true progress of the peo- 
ple believed that measures should be 
taken to eradicate the liquor traffic, 
an evil which was leaving its blight- 
ing traces everywhere. The only way 
of ascertaining the truth about con- 
ditions which existed in the past is 
to search the records left by those 
in those times. Fromi these records 
the following interesting and most 
significant facts and statements have 
'been gleaned: 

In January, 1831, the annual meet- 
ing of the Cumberland County Tem- 
perance Society was held, and a re- 
port was read and ordered to be print- 
ed. It was complied by the corre- 
sponding secretary, Solomon Adams, 
under the direction of the board au- 
thorized by the society. In the open- 
ing of this report the following state- 
ment is made: 

The facts which have come into 
their (the committee's) possession, 
from various sources, are equally va- 



rious in their character. Many of 
them will show much to encourage us 
to future efforts, and others will show 
that there is still abundant call for 
continued exertions in a cause so 
auspiciously commenced. Were your 
board to consult their private feelings 
only, there are many facts of an un- 
favorable and local bearing, which 
they would gladly suppress; but as 
your deputed agents they feel they 
may not keep back the truth; that 
they may not, 

"Set down aught in malice, or aught 
extenuate." 

In this report mention is made of 
Korth Yarmouth, the population of 
that town being at that time 2664. 
Formerly, 13,612 gallons of liquors were 
annually consumed by that communi- 
ty. The board comments upon the 
fact that the annual consumption has 
been reduced to 2270 gallons annually, 
and that the licensed retailers have 
been reduced from 14 to 5. It was 
considered a subject of great gratifi- 
cation and improvement that in Free- 
port, some of the ship yards do with- 
out ardent spirits. At Woodford s 
Corner the statement was made that 
the annual mortality was about 30, 
and one-third of these were deaths by 
intemperance. 

At Crorham, the consumption of ar- 
dent spirits was 5500 gallons annually. 
At Baldwin, a report was made which 
read as follows: 

"More than 30 farms have been car- 
ried on the past year without ardent 
spirit, and considerable mechanical la- 
bor performed without it." In Lew- 
iston and Danville in 1828 there was 
a population of about 3,000, and 6,072 
gallons of intoxicating liquors wer> 
annually consumed. In Minot there 
were four stores and in each one of 
them ardent spirits were sold. 

The board gave the following gloomy 
report from the town of Cape Fliza 
beth: "The town exhibits in a moral 
point of view, an almost unvaried, 
dreary, desolate waste, and what 
makes the prospect three-fold more 
desolate and weary is the dreadful 
prevalence of intemperance among us 
The town contains probably about 1,- 
700 people, and from a residence o 
more than two years among them, and 
after having made many inquiries, : 
licensed liquor dealers with not more 
three-fourths of the male heads of 
families through the town are habitu- 
ally intemperate, and will become in- 
toxicated, whenever a favorable op- 



port-unity occurs; and to this number 
must be added many young men and 
boys, who are following hard after the 
steps of their fathers; and now and 
then a drunken wife and mother. Our 
dram shops, of which we have a full 
supply, are open on the Sabbath.*' 

In Portland, in 1822, with a popula- 
tion of less than 12,000 there were 133 
licensed liuor deqalers with not more 
than 12,000 population, there were 169. 
It was the custom for master me- 
chanics to furnish ardent spirits to 
their journeymen and apprentices and 
the statement is made that one mem- 
ber of the association, annually used 
three hogsheads of liquors for this pur- 
pose. 

At East Machias in a population of 
1066, 10,000 gallons of ardent spirits 
were annually used, at an expense of 
$10,000, and there were 17 retailers of 
liquors there. Machiasport with her 
population of 683 annually consumed 
3,780 gallons, and had five retail liquor 
dealers. Deer Isle in Hancock Coun- 
ty with a population of 2,000, had 14 
licensed liquor sellers. In Blue Hill, 
with a population of 1,499, the annual 
consumption of liquors was 3,480 gal- 
lons; a half pint a day was the al- 
lowance for each man working in 
shipyards. Bucksport, with a popu- 
lation of 2,3'54, yearly consumed 7,550 
gallons. Hampden, with a population 
of 2,015, consumed 4,500 gallons. Brew- 
er, with a population of 1,075, con- 
sumed 3,500 gallons. The town of 
"Warren, in Lincoln County, with pop- 
ulation of 2,032, consumed 12,779 gal- 
lons, and there were 16 dealers in ar- 
dent spirits. 

A correspondent writing from Ox- 
ford County, spoke of one of the per- 
sons who made an excessive use of 
liquor as a "schoolmaster of good tal- 
ents, but bad habits." This report 
written in 1831, says, "Three years 
ago the cost of ardent spirits con- 
sumed in Maine was from three to 
four times the amount of town, coun- 
ty and State taxes. The cost of con- 
sumption now is about equal to these 
taxes. Before the work of the Tem- 
perance Association began, it was es- 
timated that there were 10,000 inebri- 
ates in Maine, and that 1,000 annually 
died through intemperance. 

In Portland there were 85 inmates of 
the almshouse, and 71 of the number 
were there on account of intemperance. 

The following extract from a letter 
written by Charles Jarvis to Editor of 
the New England Farmer dated ar 



Bangor. Nov. 16, 1830, is a striking il- 
lustration of the general use of ardent 
spirits at that time. 

"I availed myself of the opportunity 
to inform you that this past season I 
was concerned in the execution of a 
contract for the making of 19 miles of 
the United States military road be- 
tween Bangor and Houlton; that we 
had on an average about 40 men em- 
ployed; the labor was under the hard- 
est and most trying conditions. We 
worked in mud and water half leg 
deep, digging drains, and slept on the 
ground, with only a few boughs under 
us. Notwithstanding the severity of 
the service to which we were exposed, 
only six days of one man's time was 
lost by sickness, and this is attributed 
to the fact that not one drop of any 
ardent spirit was brought into our 
camp. After this let no advocate of 
rum say that it is necessary to keep 
out the cold, or ward off the effects of 
exposure to dampness and wet." 

With conditions like this existing all 
over the State, in the year 1830 and 
1831, it is not to be wondered at that 
the people who were interested in the 
reform work of temperance, in spite 
of the bits of encouragement which 
they noted in this report should feel 
that much remained to be done, along 
the line of temperance reform, and 
should ardently desire the strong arm 
of the law to assist them in enforcing 
a better condition of things. For the 
next two years these temperance re- 
formers worked hard and unceasingly 
to better conditions; and in 1832 a 
State Temperance Association was 
formed, with the most prominent men 
of the State as its officers. Their 
meetings were held at the State capi- 
tal, and the second annual report, pre- 
sented in February 1834, will form the 
basis of another article upon this sub- 
ject. 



LETTER XXXVL 

REPORT OF MAINE TEMPERANCE 
SOCIETY. 

AUGUSTA, Feb. 6.— (Special Cor- 
respondences—From 1830 to 1834 the 
cause of temperance gained great 
foothold in Maine. People most inter- 
ested realized that much must be 
done in that direction, if the State 
was to improve and progress as she 
ought, and in the year 1832 agitators 
of reform met and formed the Maine 
Temperance Society, adopting a con- 
stitution . and bylaws which provided 
that annual meetings should be held 



79 



at the State capital. Committees were 
appointed to prosecute the work, and 
among others, a committee to gather 
statistics concerning the actual con- 
ditions of the State in relation to in- 
temperance. 

At the second annual meeting heild 
in Augusta in February, 1834, this 
committee, through the corresponding' 
secretary, Hon. Samuel M. Pond, 
•made report from which the following 
statistics are selected, as indicative 
of the conditions of the State in gen- 
eral. The report as presented was 
compiled from the reports of two 
committees. 

At the second annual meeting presid- 
ed over by Hon Prentiss Mellen of Port- 
land, president of the society, Prof. 
Alpheus Packard of Bowdoin College 
was principal speaker, and taking for 
his text the resolve "That This Maine 
Temperance Society is Eminently 
Philanthropic," Prof. Packard said in 
part: 

"What a change have these few 
years ,(1830-1834) wrought. Of those 
who but a few years ago were re- 
garded as lost inebriates, more than 
6,000 have heen, it is hoped, reclaimed 
from their bondage. But the change 
is not confined to them, it affects the 
whole community. There is a sensi- 
tiveness in the public -mind in rela- 
tion to the use of the instruments of 
intoxication in all forms, which a 
few years since to have anticipated 
would have been to expose one to the 
charge of being an enthusiastic vis- 
ionary." 

The committee which had in charge 
the gathering of statistics, sent to 
every town lists of questions to be 
answered, including such questions as: 
Number of taverns selling liquor? 
Expense of paupers in town? What 
part caused by intemperance? How 
freely is liquor employed among work- 
ing people? By employers? and many 
other similar leading questions. From 
the returns the corresponding secre- 
tary compiled his report, and the fol- 
lowing items were included: 

York County, Hon. Daniel Goo de- 
no w, Alfred, president; John McDon- 
old, Limerick, secretary; Alfred, 1,200 
gallons sold in 1832, 2,000 in 1833; $300 
cost of paupers, $275 due to intemper- 
ance. Kennebunk, 5,000 gallons sold 
in 1832, 1,000 in 1833, (in violation of 
law); $500 pauper tax, one-half caused 
by intemperance. York, 20,000 gallons 
in 1832, 300 in 1833; $900 expense of 
paupers, 90 per cent by intemperance. 
There were in York County 12 tem- 
perance taverns, 31 liquor selling tav- 
erns, 68 retailers, 42 of whom aban- 
doned the traffic in 1833. 

From York a man writes: In the 
year 1832, the firm to which I belong 
sold 5,000 gallons annually, and- 1 es- 
timate that the nine licensed retailers 
together sold upwards of $30,000. I 
should say that this year not more 



than 300 gallons were drank in the 
town. 

Cumberland County, Willian Ladd, 
Minot, president. In Brunswick 
13,000 gallons sold in 1827, 4,000 in 1833. 
In Portland, expense of paupers $5,000, 
$4,800 due to liquor. In Westbrook, 
7,500 gallons in 1827, 4,000 in 1833; 11 
dram selling taverns, 31 retailers. In 
the County there were 10 temperance 
taverns, 69 of which sold liquor; 214 
retailers, 56 abandoning the traffic be- 
fore 1834. 

This County reports: Brunswick re- 
ports, as great encouragement, 
"There is a factory now building 
where no spirit is allowed the work- 
men. During the Spring a vessel 
was built, launched, and has been 
navigated without ardent spirit. 

Danville says: Laws regulating li- 
censes but little regarded, and are in 
the opinion of secretary a standing 
monument of the imperfection of hu- 
man legislation." (At this time Dan- 
ville included what is now known as 
the city of Dewiston.) 

Falmouth reports: "One church 
admits none to its fellowship who 
drink ardent spirits. There are two 
members of another church who traf- 
fic in ardent spirits, and are doing 
much injury to the town." 

Harps well: Some vessels are sent 
to sea from this place without ardent 
spirits. Militia officers treat their 
soldiers. Mechanics are furnished 
with ardent spirits at 10 o'clock and 
4, a half pint daily being the usual 
amount allowed. 

Portland: The secretary is of the 
opinion that the amount of New Eng- 
land rum distilled there costs con- 
sumers at least $160,000. Over 100 re- 
tailers; cost of paupers, $5,000, "of 
which $4999.99 is due to intemperance;" 
"A new whaling ship is being fitted 
out for a three years' voyage to car- 
ry no spirits save in the medicine 
chest." 

Westbrook: In 1833, population less 
than 3,500, 30 retailers, 11 hotels selling 
liquor. The secretary remarks, "You 
must conclude, sir, by the number of 
retailers, that the ox has been wont to 
push with his horns, in Westbrook. 
He has, sir, and many have been killed 
as "hath been testified by his owner." 
Lincoln county: Thomaston, 22,000 
gallons sold in 1833. Topsham, 1,210; 
Bowdoin, 2,700; Alna, 1,000, Wiscassett, 
18,729 in 1827, 5,000 in 1833. There are 
six temperance taverns, 34 dram-sell- 
ing taverns, retailers who have aban- 
doned selling, in 1830-34, 148. Many 
towns report discontinuing use of ar- 
dent spirits at raisings, launchings, mi- 
litary meetings, and in some cases, the 
half-pint daily is not furnished work- 
men. From Alna it is reported "At an 
election of militia officers in 1833, those 
elected accepted if they should not be 
compelled to treat." 



so 



Bowdoinham reports, "Among us 
fashionable tippling is becoming un- 
fashionable." Georgetown says "So- 
cial visits are now made without either 
spirits or wine, and usually closed 
with prayer." 

Lewiston: "Light Infantry Company, 
commanded by Capt. Stephen Cutler, 
voted to dispense with ardent spirits 
at company trainings." A man in this 
town in good circumstances, succeeded 
in getting a barn framed and raised 
without spirits. The town reports, 
however, "laws regulating licenses, not 
observed, but set at defiance." 

Thomaston says, "I think we may 
say that three fourths of the schooners 
and sloops have discontinued the use 
of ardent spirits. 

Topsham reports generally improved 
conditions but opposition from profess- 
ing christians, in some cases. In Bow- 
doinham a deacon told his minister he 
should have felt less sorry to see him 
completely drunk, than to have him 
join a temperance society." 

Waldo county reports In Belfast, 
26,950 gallons sold in 1833, Camden 3,000 
Searsmont, 4,000 in 1827, 1,000 in 1833: 
1 temperance tavern, 19 sellings liquors 
72 retailers; Belfast writer says: 
"Some respectable inhabitants report 
conditions much improved here; what 
must they have formerly been if they 
are improved with 16 retail shops, four 
taverns, which in 1833 have sold nearly 
27,000 gallons and a distillery here 
which manufactures 9,000 gallons an- 
nually? 

Kennebec County: In Augusta, from 
100,000 to 150,000 gallons sold in 1833; 
(Farmington, 5,650 in 1830; Waterville, 
44,000 in 1827, retailers refuse to inform 
committee, in 1833; 17 temperance tav- 
erns in county; 61 dram selling taverns 
118 retailers of which 15 are in Augus- 
ta, 14 in Gardiner, 16 in Hallowell, 14 
in "Waterville. "The temperance re- 
form has improved conditions, and in- 
creased happiness." 

Augusta correspondent says "There 
has been a dead calm among us, save 
when we met and voted to circulate 
your report among the school districts, 
Last year we voted not to authopize 
our selectmen to grant licenses to re- 
tail ardent spirit to be drank in shops. 
And though the traffic went on, it was 
in secrecy; this year our streets are 
filled and out witnesses to the tri- 
umphs of intemperance. Even Sunday 
is not regarded as a day of 
rest from this unholy traffic; for two 
or three at least of the shops are open 
on that day. 

Augusta also reports, "We have had 
one change of sentiment grateful to 
our feelings. During the last session 
of the C. C. pleas for this county, an 
action was tried for defamation of 
character. The words spoken were 
"You are a drunkard, and as such unfit 
for your occupation," which was that 
of a mariner. Defense set up truth as 



a defense. Verdict for plaintiff, one 
cent, and % cent costs. 

Farmington: "Several traders seem- 
ed unwilling to inform the secretary 
how much ardent spirit they had sold 
in 1833, estimated 2,900 gallons. Gardi- 
ner writer remarks "to speak plainly, 
the cause of temperance is here a very 
indifferent matter." Selectmen is the 
cause of the illegality of selling, they 
give silent permission. And a footnote 
says, "Two of them are quite too fond 
of an extra glass." We have fourteen 
retailing shops, and not a retailer has 
a license to sell. 

Penobscot county, too, felt the evil 
effects of liquors. In Bangor, in 1827 
was sold 23.000 gallons of liquors; in 
1832 a less quantity, but no figures to 
be obtained. Brewer, 2,500 in 1827, none 
in 1833. Orono, 10,000 gallons, in 1831; 
Hampden, 1,500 gallons: in Penobscot 
county, in 1833, there were 15 temper- 
.ance taverns, 38 dram-selling; 80 re- 
tailers, 30 of whom were in Bangor; 
drams to soldiers, ship workers and 
laborers, generally abandoned, in 1S32. 
Bangor's special report was: 36 stores 
selling liauor, of a total of 130 stores 
and shops in town. The agent patheti- 
cally remarks "Some men will talk well 
on this subject, but when the question 
is asked how much will you pay to 
support this holy cause of temperance 
I have found too many who have no 
idea of helping this way. They say 
they favor the cause; they will set it 
a good example; but as to money, ir. 
does not seem necessary to have 
much, and there are others who can 
better give it This spirit is too com- 
mon!" 

Kirkland sends in an unique report: 
"We have in this town about 60 voters, 
one-fifth of whom may be called hard 
drinkers. The only person who sells 
liquor here is a preacher of Universal- 
ism, and there is only a Baptist 
church here; one of its deacons and 
three of its members still use ardent 
spirits as a drink." 

Oxford county reports: Six temper- 
ance taverns, 32 dram-selling; 52 re- 
tailers of which Fryeburg had 7; mil- 
itia officers treat their soldiers in 
every town reporting save Fryeburg; 
mechanics are not furnished their half 
pint in nine towns; the old custom of 
ardent spirits at raisings, employed 
only at Oxford. Selectmen authorized 
to license dram sellers in Andover, 
Brownfield, Buckfield, Fryeburg, Swe- 
den, Waterford. In Andover, 2,000 
gallons ardent spirits sold in 1832; 
Fryeburg, $100 expense of poor, all 
caused by liquor; Paris, 4.963 gallons 
sold in 1833; Waterford, 2.600. 

The general reports from that county 
were embodied in that from Andover, 
which says: "There is a salutory and 
visible reform in this place as respects 
the use and abuse of liquors." 

In this annual report of the Maine 
Temperance Society in 1834 the state- 
ment was made that it was satisfae- 



81 



torily proved that 1,300,000 gallons of 
ardent spirits were consumed in this 
State in 1827; 618,000 gallons in 1832, 
and 464,000 gallons in 1833. The cost 
to the consumers in 1833, at 75 cents 
per gallon was- $348,000. In 141 towns, 
containing a population of 204,329, the 
taxes for support of the poor for 1833 
amounted to $44,535— $25,076 of which 
was directly caused by intemperance. 
In 56 towns ovly the State had the 
■militia officers abandoned the custom 
of treating their soldiers on days of 
parade. Harpswell, Canaan and Dui- 
ton only, of all the towns, reported, 
still continued the old custom of fur- 
nishing mechanics with ardent spirits, 
at 11 a. m., and 4 p. m., the usual al- 
lowance being one-half pint per day. 
In a few towns the use of ardent spir- 
its and wine prevailed at social parties. 
The report says: "There are some 
professors of religion in every town 
reported, who either omit or refuse to 
join a temperance society, or are ex- 
plicitly opposed to others joining. 
From about one- half the towns in 
the State 1,468 families containing 
6,830 persons, were reported "as being 
poor and more or less miserable in 
consequence of intemperance." 



LETTER XXXVIL 

THE RESULTS UNDER LICENSE IN 
MAINE. 

AUGUSTA, Feb. 8. (Special Corre- 
spondence.) — The question is often 
asked, are there any convincing proofs 
of the good results of the Prohibitory 
Law? After the repeal of the Maine 
law in 1856 the State Central Temper- 
ance Committee of Maine collected re- 
liable data from different sections of 
the State as to the actual operations of 
the Maine Law upon the cause of tem- 
perance, and also upon the condition of 
the traffic in intoxicating drinks und- 
cer the Maine law as well as during 
the periods immediately preceding its 
enactment and subsequent to its re- 
peal. 

The queries sent out were: 1: Were 
there anj- open shops in your town or 
county before the enactment of the 
Maine Law. June, 1851? If so, please 
mention the probable extension of the 
traffic? 

2: What was the effect upon the 
traffic of the enactment of the Maine 
Law, so far as you observed and 
learned from reliable sources? 

3: "What has been the effect of the 
reapeal of the Maine Law upon the 
rum traffic and intemperance, within 
your knowledge as derived from your 
own observation and from reliable in- 
formation? 



Answering these questions, these are 
some of the replies: 

In Sanford, York County, the inves- 
tigation was made by Theodore Stev- 
ens, Jr., M. B. Greenhalgh, John Mer- 
rill, Henry Stetson, William L. Currey, 
Salter Emery, I. K. Kimball, Steven 
Dorman, C. H. Bennett, W. T. Sar- 
gent. 1: Before enactment of the 
Maine Law there were from 5 to 7 
places in town where intoxicating 
drinks were freely sold; intemperance, 
wretchedness and crime, were the con- 
sequent results. 2: The effect of the 
Maine Law of 1851 was to shut up ail 
the above mentioned places where 
drinks were openly sold, and though 
some obtained them and drank to in- 
toxication yet we believe intemper- 
ance, wretchedness and crime de- 
creased under the operation of the 
Maine Law, in three years from 1851, 
in a tenfold proportion. 3: The effect 
of the repeal of the Maine Law upon 
the liquor traffic and intemperance in 
this town and vicinity is to open again, 
wider than before, the floodgates of in- 
temperance upon the community. The 
traffic has increased beyond what it 
was previous to the law of 1851, and 
the traffickers appear determined to 
make up for lost time, and overwhelm 
and crush all the fond hopes of the 
friends of temperance. 

From Bangor, the report was made 
by Rev. Dr. Pond, professor in the 
Theological Seminary. 1: Yes, a s,reat 
many; it used to be said there were 100 
places in Bangor ^here intoxicating 
drinks were openly bought and sold. 
2: The effect was to stop the open sale 
of intoxicating liquors. Some were 
sold, undoubtedly, but it was done in 
secret, in the lowest places, and 
probably at some of the hotels. 3: I 
should think the rum traffic is greatly 
increased in Bangor within the last 
year. I judge so from the increased 
number of intoxicated persons whom I 
see about the streets. Also from the 
number convicted of being drunkard., 
and the largely increased numbers 
whom I am told are confined from 
time to time in the watchhouse. My 
own opinion is that prohibition, not 
license, is the prepor method of deal- 
ing with the rum traffic. 

Standish. 

From Standish, in Cumberland Coun- 
ty, the report was made by William 
Paine, county commissioner. He said 1: 
We do not know of many open rum 
shops in Standish, from 1846 to the 
Maine Law of 1851, but a good deal of 



82 



liquor was sold and drank in that 
time, mostly in a clandestine way 2: 
The effect of the Maine Law upon the 
traffic is good; it nearly closed up the 
entire sale. 3: Since the repeal of the 
Maine Law the traffic is very much in- 
creased, and intemperance is gaining 
rapidly among us. 

Belfast was reported by T. H. Mar- 
shall. 1: There was in this city a con- 
siderable number, and I have no 
doubt there were more or less in every 
town in the county. 2: The effect 
was good; many if not the greater 
number, abandoned the traffic at once, 
not wishing to undergo the difficulties 
of carrying on a secret business and 
fearing the penalties of the law if de- 
tected. In fine, the open rum traffic 
was annihilated. 3: The effect has 
'been in this city to increase the num- 
ber of liquor dealers, increase the 
sales, and as a consequence, increase 
intemperance, particularly among the 
poorer classes, who were to a very 
great extent, cut off under the opera- 
tion of the Maine Law. From our 
packet freight lists and the admission 
of heavy liquor dealers in Boston, 
there can be no doubt that the amount 
of liquore brought here this year has 
at least doubled that of four years 
previous, in fact, I should think it 
probable the quantity has quadrupled. 
To answer in general terms I believe 
judging from past experience and re- 
liable statistics, we have a right to 
assert that the increase of sales of in- 
toxicating liquors produces increased 
intemperance and intemperance in its 
turn produces effect pernicious to good 
morals, pure religion, and the general 
alleviation of mankind. 

John W. Woodbury of York said for 
his towns, 1: There were three or four 
in the town of York, and more or less 
throughout the county of York. 2: 
The sale was greatly restricted and 
diminished, although not totally anni- 
hilated. Some liquor was sold secretly 
and prosecutions were instituted. 3: 
Intemperance has considerably in- 
creased, and liquor is now sold with- 
out opposisition in five or six places. 
Westbrook. 
The report from "Westbrook was 
made by Rev. C. Bradley, and others. 
1: Previous to the enactment of the 
Maine law, all had been done that 
could be done by moral suasion to put 
dawn the rum traffic, and much had 
been done, but there was a class who 
had no regard for God, man, nor the 
Devil, and did sell, and would sell, to 
all classes, drunk or sober, bidding de- 



fiance to all law, human or divine. 2: 
The good effect of the enactment of 
the Maine Law was indescribable, tho 
traffic had almost entirely ceased, and 
a very rare thing to see a man the 
worse for liquor. 3: Since the repeal 
of the Maine Law, every one sells who 
chooses, law or no law. It makes no 
difference. No one in this place is li- 
censed to sell, but I am told there is 
enough to be had, either in the city or 
out. Drunkenness has increased as- 
tonishingly since the repeal of the 
Maine Law. This statement of Mr. 
Bradley's was substantiated by Rev. 
J. B. Wheelright, the selectmen, Wil- 
liam Cox, Joseph Moulton and John 
Haskell, by George Libby, county com- 
missioner, and J. G. Walker. 

From Augusta, the following report 
was sent. Under the Prohibitory Law 
we were progressing well, when we 
had any municipal authorities who 
would execute that law. If we had not, 
it was not the blame of the law. With 
regard to the traffic at present, we live 
under a free rum government both 
State and municipal. Our authorities 
use no measures to suppress the traf- 
fic. They were not elected for that 
purpose. Drunkenness is as common 
in our streets as it ever was prior to 
any law. The young men are schooled 
in drunkenness; suffering wives and 
children are daily reaping the bitter 
fruits of the traffic. 

The report from Auburn was written 
by Rev. David T. Stevens. 1: There 
were three or four places where liquor 
was sold; if not openly, yet so freely 
and commonly as to be notorious. 2: 
The Maine law closed up all those 
places so that during its 

operation the evils of the 

traffic came mainly through 

abuses of the agency, or certain itin- 
erant dealers. I should judge that 
tippling was abated more than seven- 
eighths. Could the Maine Law have 
been sustained I see not why it might 
not have finally closed up the busi- 
ness. 3: Greatly to increase the traf- 
fic, and the consequent evils of intem- 
perance. I speak now not simply in 
regard to our town, but with reference 
to the counties of Androscoggin, Ox- 
ford, Franklin and part of Cumberland 
through which I have travelled within 
six months. Observation and credible 
information convinced me that the 
whole of this vicinity. I found in 
above remark is applicable to thti 
whole of this vicinity. I found in 
Franklin county a man who had been 
a zealous supporter of Democracy up 



83 



to the last election, who has recently 
seen so much of the evils of the Weils 
Law, that he is earnest to have some- 
thing- else 

The report from Presque Isle, 
Aroostook County, was made by 
George F. Whidden and Moses Rose. 
They say, 1: This is a plantation, 
where from its earliest settlement to 
1851 when the Maine law came in 
force, there was a tavern where rum 
was sold. This place had become fa- 
mous for drunkenness, especially in 
the Spring, when hundreds of men 
passed through, driving lumber down 
the Aroostook. 2: The enactment of 
the Maine law brought the traffic and 
all its consequences to a stand in this 
place, and throughout the County of 
Aroostook in 1851. At first rum was 
sold, but not openly. Many places 
were entirely closed. The sale of in- 
toxicating drinks gradually dimin- 
nished until 1855, when scarcely any 
signs of it were known. Many ha- 
bitual drinkers became temperance 
men, and the principle of prohibition 
was rapidly gaining ground among 
cur citizens. 3: As soon as the Maine 
law was repealed a bar for liquor sell- 
ing was opened in this place, and all 
around in other places through the 
county. Rum is now sold openly in 
many places here, and drunkenness is 
common. 

The report from Bowdoinham was 
made by Charles C. Cone, presiding 
elder of the district. In response to 
your call for information I will say 
that since the enactment of the Maine 
Law I have resided two years in Saco, 
two years in Hallowell, and the re- 
mainder of the time in this place. For 
nearly two years I have had charge 
of what is called Gardiner District, 
comprising more than GO towns and 
cities. Over this territory I travel 
once in three months. With regard 
to the operation of the Maine Law, 
there is, I think, but one sentiment; 
and one feeling among all intelligent 
and moral people, and that is, that 
the law was most salutary in its ef- 
fects, doing more to restrain the traf- 
fic and consequently to remove drunk- 
enness anid promote morals and the 
peace and welfare of society than all 
other instrumentalities combined. In 
nearly all the places to which I have 
alluded, I think the open traffic had 
been suppressed and the drinking had 
in a great measure subsided. The ef- 
fects of its repeal have been most dis- 
astrous. It is painful beyond de- 
scription to contemplate the defection 



and demoralization of many of our 
young men and even little boys since 
the repeal of the Maine law. 

Brunswick. 

From Brunswick the report was 
written by Alpheus S. Packard of 
Bow T doin College: 1: There were sev- 
eral and in all parts of the town; I 
cannot ascertain with sufficient ac- 
curacy the extent of the traffic. It 
has been as hign as 20,000 a year. 2: It 
was at once restrained and restricted 
within narrow limits. The retail by 
the glass was done away with; intoxi- 
cating drinks were sold only by 
stealth. 3: It has thrown the traffic 
open and intoxicating drink is now 
to be had at many places. It is es- 
timated that within a year 15,000 gal- 
lons have been sold within this town, 
although not exclusively for use with- 
in our own town limits. Men are seen 
intoxicated every day. The mischief 
is that the repeal of the law was re- 
garded by those who are willing to 
take an ell for an inch as sanctioning 
the habitual use of intoxicating 
drinks, and now our young men in 
great numbers, it is feared, are rapid- 
ly forming habits of intemperance. 
One great difficulty, it is said, is that 
the law does not make it the special 
duty of any to prosecute. Such I find 
to be the judgment of judicious ob- 
servers who feel that great interests 
of morality were imperilled by the 
repeal of the law of 1851. Many who 
favored the repeal, I understand, are 
persuaded that the measure was an 
unwise and perilous one. My an- 
swers are given after careful inquiry. 

The report from Saco was signed by 
Ivory Dame, Rev. Charles Hill, Dan- 
iel Dyer, Hon. John F. Scammon, 
Obidiah Durgin, Rev. J. T. G. Nichols. 
'They sadd: First: in the years 1849-50- 
51, there were in Saco about 25 places 
where intoxicating drinks were sold 
openly; two of these being wholesale 
stores, at which large ouantities of li- 
quors were sold to supply retail shops 
in different parts of the country. 2: 
The effect of the Maine Law was to 
suppress entirely the open traffic and 
to reduce by about three -fourths the 
actual sale of Intoxicating drinks as 
a beverage. 3: The effect of the re- 
peol of the Maine Law has been to 
re-open the traffic and to increase 
visible intemperance, ten fold. Under 
the Maine Law there was no open 
sale, and the places were few in 
which intoxicating drinks were known 
to be kept for secret sale. 



84 



"We 'have now about 25 unlicensed 
places, at which either openly or se- 
cretly liquors may be procured, and 
two licensed shops. 

"In 1855, under the Maine Law the 
number of persons convicted for 
drunkenness was 12; the number con- 
victed for assault and battery during 
the same period was 5. During the 
last month (Jan. 1857) the number of 
convictions Without any extra efforts 
for that purpose, was for drunken- 
ness 8, for .assault and battery 5; that 
4s in one month since the repal of the 
law as •many convictions for assault 
as in the whole year under the law, 
and two-thirds as many convictions 
for drunkenness. 

"The effect of the Maine law in 
checking the sale of these intoxicat- 
ing drinks exceeded our most san- 
guine expectations. Our principal 
rumshops were closed and most of 
the venders either removed from 
town, or partook themselves to a 
more respectable and better business. 
Drunkenness was seldom seen in the 
streets; and many houses before des- 
olate and wretched, were made happy 
•by the return of the inebriate to the 
paths of sobriety. 

"Upon the repeal of the Maine law 
new drinking shops were opened and 
again the bloated face, and unsteady 
walk of the drunkard appeared 
among us. Within the past few 
months the change for the worse has 
been increasingly manifest. The call 
comes up loudly from the highways 
and byways not only of our town but 
of our county and our state for a re- 
newal of the united efforts before it 
shall be too late, of all the friends of 
cirtue and humanity for the protec- 
tion of the weak. 

"As regards attendance at church 
and school as affected by the Maine 
daw: we have only to say that with- 
out any special 'means of ascertaining 
we judge from several instances that 
have happened to come under our per- 
sonal observation, the law exerted a 
decided and highly salutary influence 
fin these particulars." 



LETTER XXXVIIL 

PORTLAND UNDER MAINE LAW AND 

AFTER ITS REPEAL. 

AUGUSTA, Feb. 9. (Special corre- 
spondence.) — At a large meeting of the 
citizens of Portland held at the State 
Street Church, Jan. 5, 1857, William 
W. Thomas and Hiram Brooks, who 
were aldermen in 1851-2 and again in 



1855-6, Henry A. Jones, who was an 
alderman in 1855-6, and Samuel Chase, 
alderman in 1851-2, and Charles Baker, 
were appointed a committee to pre- 
pare an answer to the circular of the 
State Central Temperance Committee, 
asking for information in relation to 
the operation and effect of the Maine 
law in Portland, as compared with the 
periods immediately preceding its en- 
actment, and following its repeal. 

The first query by the committee is, 
Were there any rum shops in your 
town or county before the enactment 
of the Maine Law, June, 1851? If so, 
please mention the probable extent of 
the traffic. 

Answer: In 1846, the license system 
was abolished by law, and intoxicat- 
ing liquors were forbidden to be sold 
in the State except for medicinal and 
mechanical purposes only. But the 
penalties of the law were so small and 
the modes of delay so numerous that 
liquors continued to be sold without re- 
straint by unprincipled men; though 
the effect of the law of 1846 was to 
cause all persons to abandon the traf- 
fic who had any self respect or regard 
for law as such. In this County 
strong liquors were sold freely in every 
town, the law of 1856 not operating as 
any restraint upon bad men who 
w r ished to continue in the traffic. In 
Portland, but a short time before the 
enactment of the Maine Law, the 
Washingtonion Temperance Society 
appointed a large committee for the 
purpose of ascertaining the number of 
grog shops in the City. The members 
of the committee were selected from 
every ward, and several from each 
ward, so as to insure a correct report. 
The committee found in the City more 
than 300 grog shops, besides several 
wholesale liquor establishments. 

It was concluded that at the lowest 
estimates, the amount of sales for each 
shop was $3 per day, but many per- 
sons who professed to have good op- 
portunities for judging thought the 
sales would average more than $6 per 
day for each shop. But $3 per day for 
313 days in the year, for 300 grog 
shops will amount to the sum of $281,- 
700. As large as this sum is, we are 
nevertheless of the opinion that it is 
far within the amount of the actual 
expenditures. 

Such was believed to be the state of 
the liquor traffic in Portland, at the 
time of the enactment of the Maine 
Law, and this brings us to the second 
query of the committee, which is: 

"What was the effect upon the traf- 
fic of the enactment of the Maine Law 
so far as you observed and learned 
from reliable sources?" The committee 
answered: 

Effect of Law. 

"In this City the traffic was brought 
to a sudden and effectual check. The 
wholesale liquor business ceased in- 



85 



stantly, and the stocks of wholesale 
dealers were sent away to other 
states for sale. The singular specta- 
cle was observed in our streets of 
teams and drays laden with stocks of 
wholesale liquor dealers passing along 
to the wharves, the liquors to be 
shipped to other ports for sale. 
Throughout the entire State, we be- 
lieve, the wholesale trade in liquor was 
abolished. It is known to us personal- 
ly that in this City the retail liquor 
trade was not carried on at all, openly, 
but only with great secrecy and cau- 
tion, and, consequently, was confined 
within very narrow limits. It is with- 
in the knowledge of the committee 
that many shops, where liquor was 
freely sold before the Maine Law, were 
converted to other purposes, and cap- 
ital which had been invested in the 
liquor traffic, was diverted to other 
branches of business. That the rum 
traffic was very greatly diminished 
was very obvious to every person fa- 
miliar with our streets and public 
places, since there could be seen no- 
where in our City any appearance of a 
rumshop, and instances of intemper- 
ance were so rare as to excite the 
wonder and admiration of many of 
our people who were able to contrast 
that period with the state of intem- 
perance among us before the Maine 
Law. The returns at that period from 
the almshouse, watch house, house of 
correction and jails all concurred to 
show that some powerful cause was 
at work in the community for good, 
diminishing to a very great extent the 
poverty, pauperism, suffering and 
crime which had before existed among 
us. 

"Such was the effect of the law 
that evil-minded persons, who per- 
sisted in the effort to sell these li- 
quors, resorted to ingenious strata- 
gems to introduce them into the 
City. Small kegs of them were con- 
cealed in meal, or corn, or salt, or 
sugar, and all contained in flour bar- 
rels. Sometimes they were detected, 
disguised as oil, or pork, and some- 
times in sailors' chests. If any at- 
tempt was made to transport these li- 
quors through the streets it was al- 
ways in small quantities and in dis- 
guise, and persons engaged in trans- 
porting them employed the utmost Vig- 
ilance to avoid the police, and, when 
detected, would abandon the liquors in 
the streets and make their escape, or 
would sometimes break the vessels 
containing them before they could be 
seized by the officers. 

"The secret rumshops were some- 
times furnished with drop shelves, on 
which the bottles were put so that, on 
the entrance of the police, by the 
touch of a spring, the whole would 
drop into the cellar upon stones placed 
to receive them. Into such places the 
■police would go many times in a day, 
so that the loss of glass and other 



stock in trade by breakage was so 
'heavy that this plan of escape was 
abandoned. 

"By statements from managers of 
steamers and other packets, and of 
the railways leading into the City, 
our own opinion formed on all we saw, 
and from all we heard from most re- 
liable sources, is corroborated and 
confirmed that the effect of the Maine 
law in curtailing the liquor traffic was 
greater than the most sanguine of its 
friends could have anticipated. Some 
of the members of the committee were 
members of the City Government in 
1851, and again in il855-6, and, conse- 
quently, have had good opportunities 
of observing much of the practical 
working of the law, in relation tp 
which we cannot be mistaken. 

"The effect of the law was to put 
temptation to indulgence in strong 
drink out of the way of inebriates, so 
that large numbers of them were re- 
claimed of their former habits, and be- 
come sober men and industrious and 
useful members of society. So ob- 
vious was this great change in the 
habits of the people that the most 
casual observer noticed it, and re- 
marked that those localities in the 
City, which were formerly notorious 
for brawls and fighting were as 
peaceful and orderly as any other 
neighborhoods among us. 

The third and last query is: "What 
has been the effect of the repeal of the 
Maine law upon the rum traffic and 
intemperance within your knowledge 
as derived from your own observation 
and from reliable information?" 

Effect of Repeal. 

The committee said: "The repeal of 
the Maine Law was immediately fol- 
lowed by the establishment of great 
numbers of open grog shops in almost 
former times. Indeed, immediately 
ance was once more seen in our streets 
and public places, as it used to be in 
former times, ndeed, immediately 
after the election in September, 1855, 
when it was ascertained that Mr 
Wells was chosen Governor, the worst 
part of the people threw off all re- 
straint and fear of the law, because 
the popular verdict, in the election of 
Mr. Wells, had 'been in favor of free 
rum, as these persons thought. 

"Steamers and packets arriving at 
our port are now laden, as formerly, 
with great quantities of liquors, which 
are discharged upon our wharves, and 
transported openly through our streets, 
and lie upon our sidewalks encumber- 
ing the public ways as they did in 
former times. Many shops are filled 
with great quantities of these liquors, 
which are exposed in hogsheads, pip^s 
and barrels, to the observation of 
every passer-by, and the" spectacle is 
once more presented of open 
bars with their array of bottles 
and glasses, tempting every wayfarer 
to drink of the waters of death. The 



80 



unlicensed grog - shops are as bold and 
shameless in these displays as are 
those which have the authority of the 
broad seal of the State and the sign 
manual of our City fathers. The busi- 
ness of converting good citizens into 
toad ones; of impoverishing, degrading 
and brutalizing thousands of our peo- 
ple by the grog shops, is carried on 
as freely and openly and fearlessly by 
the unlicensed, as by those who are 
expressly authorized and empowered 
to do it by law. 

"The committee is aware that it is 
said by the ignorant, the thoughtless 
or unscrupulous, that there is not so 
much liquor sold now as there was un- 
der the Maine Law, and that there 
was more sold under the Maine Law 
than there ever was before. This re- 
mark is so absurd that we are fully 
warranted in ascribing it only to the 
thoughtless, the ignorant or unscrupu- 
lous. It is to the effect that legal ob- 
stacles in the form of forfeitures, of 
fines and imprisonment, thrown in the 
legal facilities for carrying it on, tend 
only to increase and extend it; while 
legal facilities for carry it on tend 
to diminish it. According to this log- 
ic, our fisheries, instead of being 
discouraged by bounties amounting to 
many thousands of dollars paid to 
fishermen from the public treasury, 
should be encouraged, by fines and im- 
prisonments imposed upon the men, 
and seizure and confiscation of vessels 
and cargoes awarded to the owners by 
way of stimulating both men and 
owners to multiply vessels and catch 
more fish. And gambling houses, and 
lotteries, and burglaries, and murders, 
should be more effectually suppressed 
by liberal salaries, bounties, or annui- 
ties paid to all who should be convict- 
ed of violation of law in these matters 
instead of heavy penalties of fine and 
imprisonment. 

"One of our City officials recently 
made the remark referred to in* the 
presence of a Portland gentleman who 
had an excellent opportunity of know- 
ing the facts, for he owns a large 
manufactory in the immediate neigh- 
borhood of many open rumsbops. Said 
this gentleman in reply, 'You need not 
make that remark to me. I know its 
falsity. In my business I want empty 
rum barrels and a great many of them. 
They are better for my purpose than 
for any other. Under the Maine Law 
it was very difficult to obtain any at 
all, and only a very few could be had 
at any price, but now I can get them 
in any quantity, any day.' Under 
the Maine Law the steamers plying 
between this port and Boston or New 
York brought small quantities of liquor 
occasionally for illegal sale, but al- 
ways disguised by the shippers. But 
now it is brought in large quantities 
on every trip, and landed as openly 
as other articles of merchandise. 



"The committee have it from a 
common carrier that he has for years 
been in that business, and has con- 
stantly carried money for persons en- 
gaged in the liquor traffic. He spoke 
of one person who is notorious in the 
City for' his persistency in selling 
liquors secretly, even under the Maine 
Law. Our informant said the amount 
of money carried for this man to Bos- 
ton to pay for liquor was not more 
than $40 of $50 weekly. But since the 
repeal of the Maine Law. he says, the 
sum sent by the same man will amount 
tc $1,000 a week and he says the 
amount of liquors brought into Port- 
land since the repeal of the Maine Law 
is at least 50 gallons for every one 
that was brought here before " that 
time. As a fair indication — not by 
any means exaggerated— of the in- 
creased consumption of intoxicat- 
ing liquors in Maine since the 
repeal of the Maine Law, we 
state that the weekly steamers plying 
between this port and New York in 
the six months under the Maine law 
ending Jan. 1, 1856, brought the fol- 
lowing quantity of liquors, exclusive of 
Canada freight: 10 pipes, 23 barrels, 
11 cases and two barrels of ale. And 
nearly all this was for lawful sale, 
by town and city agencies. 

"During the six months after the 
repeal of the Maine law ending Jan. 
1, 1857, the quantity brought was 58 
pipes, 1040 barrels, 308 cases, and 373 
barrels of ale, being within a fraction 
an increase of 30 galtons for 1, within 
a year after the repeal of the Maine 
law. The quantity of liquors brought 
by the line of steamers running be- 
tween this City and Boston for the six 
months ending Jan. 1, 1857, was as fol- 
lows, namely: of beer, 1622 barrels, of 
spirits 2107 barrels, and 607 kegs. 

"The quantity brought for the six 
months ending Oct. 1, 1855, was as fol- 
lows, namely: of beer, 137 barrels; of 
spirits 196 barrels and 33 keg-5 — in- 
cluding the quantity for apothecaries 
and the City agent — Mr. Dow was in- 
augurated as Mayor about the middle 
of April of that year, and the quan- 
tity brought in that month was 60 
barrels of beer, 14 kegs, and 77 bar- 
rels of spirits. The State election 
that year was early in September, and 
the quantity brought in that month 
was 69 barrels of beer, and 47 barrels 
and 7 kegs of spirits, leaving only 8 
barrels of beer and 71 barrels and 12 
kegs of spirits for the remaining four 
months, including the quantity for 
apothecaries and the City agent. The 
amount stated as brought from Bos- 
ton during the six months ending Jan. 
1, 1867, is very much less than the 
quantity received from Boston, as 
large supplies are now brought toy 
coasting vessels, which was scarcely 
done at all under the Maine law. 

"The committee finds that a very 
small proportion of those liquors is for 



our native citizens, almost the entire 
quantity being for our foreign popu- 
lation. 

"All the members of your commit- 
tee are personally acquainted with 
Fore street, through its whole length, 
and have been so for years. Before 
the Maine law that street in many 
parts was regarded as the worst in 
town, by reason of the numerous vile 
grog shops by which it was infested 
and of the crowds of noisy and in- 
toxicated persons and drunken rows 
by which it was disgraced. But un- 
der the Maine Law there was not an 
open grop shop upon any part of that 
street, and it was as quiet and order- 
ly by day and night as any other 
street in the City. Now, however, it 
is found, by actual count, that there 
are more than 200 open grog shops 
of the vilest description upon that 
street. 

"Tour committee does not hesitate 
to say that, unless some effectual 
measures are speedily taken for the 
suppression of the tippling shops and 
drinking houses by which our City 
and State are infested since the re- 
peal of the Maine law, the great 
benefits of the temperance reforma- 
tion, which have been experienced by 
all classes of our people, must soon be 
lost, and society will relapse into a 
condition as bad as before that re- 
form was commenced." 

Overseer's office, Dec. 8, 3855. 
'To Hon. Neal Dow, Mayor of 'Port- 
land: 
©ear Sir — In answer to your ques- 
tion, what proportion of the inmates 
of the almshouse and house of correc- 
tion are brought there by intoxicat- 
ing drink, we answer that we have 
not the least doubt that 90 out of 100 
are brought there directly or indirect- 
ly by strong drink. 

Yours respectfully, 

GEORGIEi PEARSON, 

ELISHA TROWBRIDGE, 

BENJAMIN LARRAJB/EE, 

AlLfVAH LJJBBY, 

GEORGIEi WORCESTER, 

NAHUM LTBIBY, 

'S. 'C. CHAISE, 

SAMUEL ELDER, 

JOHN W. RAND, 

Overseers of Poor. 

UBVII WEYMOUTH, 

Keeper of the House. 



LETTER XXXIX- 

PRESENT CONDITION OF 
PROHIBITION. 

AUGUSTA. Feb. 10. (Special Corre- 
spondences—History shows that the 
people of Maine very early in the ex- 
istence of the State, took a great in- 
terest in temperance, and in the cause 
of prohibition. In 1837, by General 
James Appleton, the matter of prohibi- 
tion was introduced into the Maine 



Legislature. In 1846 a mild Prohibitory 
Law was passed, and in 1851, what was 
known as the Maine Law was enacted 
and since that time, with the excep- 
tion of two years, Maine has had a 
prohibition of the liquor traffic, which 
in 1884 was engrafted into the constitu- 
tion. 

The movement has had the support 
of such men as Appleton, Kent, Hub- 
bard, Hamlin, the Morrills, Perham, 
Dingley, Chamberlain, Connor, Davis, 
Robie, Burleigh, Cleaves, Powers, Hill, 
Cobb, and our present Governor Fer- 
nald, of Blaine, and Frye, and of 
countless others who might be men- 
tioned, who have been prominent and 
powerful in the building up of the 
State, and in the using of their efforts 
for the uplift of the people. Each per- 
son can compare for himself, the con- 
ditions of today, with conditions pre- 
vious to 1840. In 1833 there were manu- 
factured in the City of Portland 500,- 
000 gallons of New England rum. 
This took $300,000 from the laboring 
classes, as the wealthier people drank 
wines, brandy and the higher grades of 
liquors. A committee which investigat- 
ed conditions at that time, asked the 
question if in consideration of the fact 
that so much money was paid by the 
laboring classes for rum, it was any 
wonder that so many farms in Cum- 
berland County were mortgaged? 

In 1836 Edward Kent, afterwards 
Governor of the State and member of 
the Supreme Court, was elected mayor 
of Bangor. He was re-elected in 1837. 

In his inaugural address in 1837 
Mayor Kent said, in speaking of the 
matter of pauperism in the commun- 
ity: 

"The subject of pauperism leads to 
the consideration of its prolific source — 
intemperance. As a municipal corpor- 
ation we are interested in this sub- 
ject, for our burdens and taxes are 
swelled by the crime and misery at- 
tendant upon this destroyer of human 
life; and human happiness. As the 
constitutive guardian of the public 
weal, it is our duty to do what we can 
to restrain its ravages. I trust that 
the resolution adopted by the board 
last June will be adhered to, and that 
no legalized and licensed drinking will 
be found within our limits. In my 
view, the sanction or influence of legal 
authority should never be given to a 
traffic which fills our jails with crimi- 
nals, and almshouses with paupers, 
and our whole land with want and 
miserv." 

Through the efforts of such men as 
he, Main~ became the pioneer state in 
the prohibition policy. Since that time 
the movement has spread over the 
Country, and there are now more than 
25,000,000 people in the South alone, 
living under prohibtion. This move- 
ment has commanded the interest of 
the entire Country, and is gaining eve- 
ry day. At the present time there are 



300 prohibiten^ cities in the United 
States, having a population of over 
5000 each, with a total population of 
nearly 4,000,000. There are 90 prohibi- 
tion cities of over 10,000 each, Tennes- 
see, a few days ago, against the veto 
of its governor, adopted this policy of 
prohibition. 

So strong has become the prohibi- 
tory movement, that a National Liquor 
League of the United States has been 
organized, to stay the progress of pro- 
hibition, and to counteract its effect. 
The organization of that powerful as- 
sociation is a sufficient commentary 
upon the statement that those who are 
interested in the liquor traffic use ev- 
ery known means to advance their in- 
terests. 

At present Alabama has state pro- 
hibition; Arizona has two prohibition 
districts, and Phoenix, the capital, Las 
given a majority in favor of prohibi- 
tion. In Arkansas there are 57 prohi- 
bition counties, and it is very likely 
that State prohibition will be enacted 
this year. California has 250 prohibi- 
tion to^ ns, and a large part of the 
Southern portion of the state is free of 
saloons. Colorado has _00 prohibition 
towns, and state local option prevails. 
In Connecticut half the state is prohi- 
bition; two-thirds of Delaware is un- 
der the same rule, and the issue is be- 
ing fought out there with great ener- 
gy. There is a prohibition campaign 
on in the District of Columbia; Flori- 
da has 37 prohibition counties; Georgia 
has had state prohibition since Jan. 1, 
1908. and in that state crime has been 
reduced one-half, and drunkenness re- 
duced two-thirds. In Idaho many 
to— ns have "no license;" Illinois has 36 
prohibition counties, and 2500 prohibi- 
tion towns, there being only two coun- 
ties which are wholly license; in India- 
na county option law was passed in 
1908, and two-thirds of the state is 
now prohibition territory. In Iowa, 
there are 25 license counties, and a 
strict enforcement prohibitory state 
campaign is now being carried on. 
Kansas has state prohibition, Ken- 
tucky has 92 prohibition counties, 



Louisiana has 37 prohibition parishes, 
and state prohibition was narrowly de- 
feated in the Legislature. Maine is 
prohibition; Maryland has 15 prohibi- 
tion counties, Massachusetts has 360 
prohibition towns and cities, and in 
the state election of 1908 the majority 
agt.nst license was 18,000; Worcester 
in this state is the largest prohibition 
city in the world. Michigan has 11 
prohibition counties, and 700 prohibi- 
tion towns, while Minnesota has 6,111 
prohibition towns to her credit. Mis- 
sissippi has state prohibition which 
went into effect Dec. 31, 1908, Missouri 
has 77 prohibition counties, and a 
strict Sunday closing law. In Mon- 
tana there is one prohibition county; in 
Nebraska, there are 22 prohibition 
counties and 600 prohibition towns. In 
New Hampshire there are 183 towns 
where prohibition is enforced, and 
there is a campaign on for resubmis- 
sion of prohibition. North Carolina has 
state prohibition which was carried 
last May by a majority of 40,000; 
North Dakota has state prohibition; 
Ohio has 47 prohibition counties and 
1,621 "no license" towns; Oklahoma 
has state prohibition, and Oregon has 
a state county option law, and 21 out 
of 34 counties are prohibitory. In 
Pennsylvania there is a state -wide 
movement for county prohibition, while 
Rhode Island has a new state enforce- 
ment law, several of the towns being 
already prohibitory. South Carolina 
has 18 prohibitory counties, South 
Dakota has 13 prohibition counties, 
Tennessee has just declared prohibi- 
tion, Utah has a county prohibition 
campaign now on which is sweeping 
the state; in Vermont there are 216 
prohibition towns and a state cam- 
paign is now on. Virginia has 66 pro- 
hibition counties and Washington has 
county option to be installed during 
the present year. In Wisconsin there 
are 780 prohibition towns, and a state 
campaign is being conducted for coun- 
ty l rohibition. 

Such is the condition of the prohi- 
bition movement at the present time 
throughout the Country. 



89 



